ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Devolution

Nicholas Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the constitutional settlement on devolution in Wales.

Paul Murphy: My assessment of the devolution settlement is that the Labour-led Assembly Government are delivering real policies to underpin the lives of the people of Wales.

Nicholas Winterton: As a committed Unionist, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he believes that to make devolution work for all the people of Wales there needs to be constructive, open dialogue between Cardiff and Whitehall? In what ways can that dialogue genuinely be improved?

Paul Murphy: As a committed Unionist myself, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be constructive dialogue between Whitehall and Cardiff. That is accomplished in a number of formal ways, including regular meetings between me and the First Minister, and between Ministers and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, together with a dialogue between Members of Parliament and Assembly Members of all parties. It is vital that the people of Wales understand that the best way forward for the Welsh people is through a partnership between this Parliament, the Assembly in Cardiff, this Government and the Welsh Assembly Government.

Hywel Francis: I welcome the Secretary of State's observations, particularly his emphasis on partnership. One of the key elements of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is the role of the Welsh Affairs Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny of legislative competence orders. We have worked effectively with colleagues in the Assembly, especially Ministers, and we are committed to increasing that participation and partnership. Does he agree?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I do, and I think that the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee is, in many ways, more significant following devolution than before it because there is a huge role to play, certainly in dealing with the LCOs—my hon. Friend's Committee does a good job on that, I know—but also, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said, in maintaining a dialogue between Members of Parliament and Assembly Members, particularly by way of scrutiny. The Welsh Affairs Committee does a great job and my hon. Friend does an outstanding job as its Chairman.

David Davies: As a descendant of Owain Glyndwr and yet another proud Unionist, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he shares my concern at the taxpayer-funded All Wales Convention? It is going round demanding extra powers for the Welsh Assembly, which I and most of the Welsh people know will cost more money and inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom? What is he doing to ensure that the other side of the argument is put?

Paul Murphy: I do not think that I need do very much, as long as the hon. Gentleman remains the Member of Parliament for Monmouth. I am not a descendant of Owain Glyndwr, certainly not with a name such as mine, but I agree that the convention should be open to everybody in Wales to put their points of view. It is, in effect, testing the water. If the convention believes that a referendum is necessary, the people of Wales will decide. In the meantime, right across Wales, people have the opportunity to put the hon. Gentleman's point of view, and indeed the opposite.

Adam Price: Speaking as a Euro Unionist, not a British Unionist, and as a supporter of Owain Glyndwr, but also not as a descendant of his, and in the spirit of partnership between the nations of these islands, what does the Secretary of State think of my party's proposal that each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom should take its turn in nominating the UK representative as commissioner in the European Commission?

Paul Murphy: Not much, really, but I do think that there is a case for Assembly and Scottish Government Ministers sharing with British Government Ministers representation at meetings in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere. That has happened over the years and there is an important role to be played. However, in my view, only the sovereign state Government is able to nominate for the role of commissioner.

Cheryl Gillan: May I add that I agree with the Secretary of State's remarks on the previous question?
	The reality of the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff Bay is not quite as cosy as the first two questions perhaps suggested. Now he has had a chance to work with the LCO process, and bearing in mind the sudden rush of LCOs coming through, is he entirely happy with the procedures: the scrutiny process, which affects the Welsh Affairs Committee's work load by giving it a lot of heavy work; and the public and political intervention from the Assembly's Presiding Officer, or does the system need improving?

Paul Murphy: I think that the system needs monitoring all the time, and that there is room for improvement all the time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and members of the Welsh Affairs Committee are considering, for example, how to improve the speed with which LCOs are dealt with. I commend them for that. I note the hon. Lady's comments about the role of the Presiding Officer, and I will pass on her views when I next meet him.

Cross-border Health Services

Shailesh Vara: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on treatment in hospitals in England of patients resident in Wales and in hospitals in Wales of patients resident in England.

Peter Bone: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on treatment in hospitals in England of patients resident in Wales and in hospitals in Wales of patients resident in England.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on such matters. The discussions include the new cross-border protocol for health care services of Wales, which, I am pleased to say, has been agreed between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. He will be aware of the recent Welsh Affairs Committee report on cross-border health policy, to which he referred in his preliminary comments. He will also be aware that there should be clinical excellence for all those who wish to have medical treatment, as close as possible to their homes. Does he acknowledge that that would mean Welsh patients ending up having medical treatment in English hospitals? Will he do all that he can to urge the Welsh Health Minister to abandon her so-called in-country policy, which is causing so much distress to neurosurgery patients in Wales?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is correct in referring to the Welsh Affairs Committee interim report on the provision of cross-border health services in Wales. We have considered that important report, and the Department of Health will respond to all its points in due course. It is important to recognise, however, that devolution is about addressing particular needs. The Welsh Assembly Government have clearly defined and articulated their policy, and we are seeing consistent and radical improvements in the health care of the people of Wales. Obviously, given the unique situation with regard to the Welsh-English border, a close working relationship is needed. I am absolutely confident that the protocol that is now in place and is being implemented will ensure effective co-operation and cross-border flow to the benefit of English and Welsh patients.

Peter Bone: The Minister has referred to the difference between health care in Wales and England. With the outbreak of swine flu, and the possibility of a pandemic, is the Minister confident that the people of Wales will get the same treatment as in England?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. Only yesterday, I had a telephone conversation with Edwina Hart, the Welsh Assembly Government Health Minister, and I am absolutely confident that the greatest co-operation is taking place between central Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. I am pleased that she will make a statement to the Welsh Assembly this afternoon outlining her measures in some detail. She is participating fully in Cobra in London, and I am told that £59 million has been earmarked in Wales for effective preparation and response.

Albert Owen: I very much welcome the protocol and agreement reached between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of Health on such important cost and funding issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that, prompted by the Welsh Affairs Committee's inquiry into health and cross-border issues, it is now essential to make it a principle that access by Welsh patients and my constituents to English hospitals must be on the basis of clinical need, not geography? Is it not also important that Welsh Members of Parliament have the opportunity to discuss those issues in this House? That would be under threat if the Tories' English-only policy were to come into effect.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes important points, and I congratulate him on his excellent work to ensure an effective relationship between England and Wales on the important matter of the health service. He stresses rightly that we have a national health service in this country covering both sides of Offa's dyke, although devolution means that there is a variation on that. The principle of clinical need is cardinal to the operation of the health service in both our countries. I also agree strongly that ongoing dialogue on cross-border health is very important. It is vital that Welsh MPs, in the number that there are, contribute effectively to that debate. We would strongly oppose any attempt, suggestion or move to reduce the number of Welsh MPs, particularly with regard to this important issue.

Mark Williams: The Minister referred to the Select Committee report and concerns about the lack of co-ordination between the Department of Health in London and the Welsh Assembly Government, and, in particular, the strains that the previous arrangements placed on clinicians and patients. Is he satisfied that the new protocol, which amounts to an interim protocol, is robust enough and, crucially, transparent enough to assuage the concerns of many of my constituents—and doubtless his—who seek treatment in Gobowen, Frenchay, Hereford and elsewhere? A lot of early misinformation was provided about cross-border health flows.

Wayne David: A revised cross-border protocol for health services has been agreed with the health service in Wales and the Department of Health here in London. It has rightly taken a long time to formulate, because the issue is far from straightforward and both parties wanted to be absolutely certain they were taking the best possible approach. I believe that that is what is now contained in the cross-border protocol, which has been well received. I am confident that it will be effective for patients in Wales and England.

David Jones: The Minister will be aware of the recent media attention on the concerns expressed by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign over the lack of specialist care in Wales for people with neuromuscular conditions and their difficulty in obtaining treatment in England. The MDC has argued strongly for the establishment of a UK-wide national commissioning group for specialist diagnostic services. Is he willing to approach the Secretary of State for Health to explore the possibility of establishing such a service, which would very much benefit the people of Wales and would be very much welcomed by his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue with regard to muscular dystrophy. By definition, the issue is a cross-border one, and I would of course be more than happy to have discussions with the Department of Health and with Edwina Hart, the Welsh Assembly Government Health Minister. One of the positive things over the past few months has been a growing partnership between health services. It is true that things can be done differently—that is what devolution is all about—but it is essential that in these post-devolution times we have a constructive dialogue at all times. I shall ensure that this issue is taken forward, as he suggested.

Industrial Injuries

Don Touhig: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the compensation scheme for persons with arthritis of the knee arising from industrial injuries sustained in former Welsh coalfields.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues relating to the former Welsh coalfields. He and I warmly welcome the announcement made on 15 April by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. From this summer, sufferers of miners' knee will be able to apply for industrial injuries disablement benefit.

Don Touhig: Following the announcement, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, that miners who suffer from beat knee will be compensated, the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales is warning that some solicitors are trying to cash in by persuading miners that they have to go through them to make a claim. That is untrue, so what are the Government doing to protect claimants from those seeking to make another fast buck on the back of sick miners?

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, to which the NUM in south Wales has alerted MPs; we view with some concern the fact that certain solicitors—one in particular—have written to recipients of vibration white finger compensation and other compensation and offered their services. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but it is very important to recognise that there is no need for claimants to operate through a solicitor, because they can go directly to the Department for Work and Pensions. We must ensure that that message is made crystal clear to all people who have received vibration white finger and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compensation.

Hywel Williams: Slate quarry workers have received compensation for dust diseases since legislation brought in by the previous Labour Government in 1979. However, although coal miners have received compensation for emphysema, bronchitis and now for knee injury, slate quarry workers have not. Will the Minister examine this issue with a view to addressing what some people see as an anomaly and what some, myself included, see as an injustice?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue, and he accurately points out that it was a Labour Government who introduced this compensatory measure. Of course, as we all realise, these processes can be extremely complicated and can contain anomalies and gaps. I give a commitment that we will do everything we can to ensure that there is maximum coverage for everybody who desires and is in need of the compensation that is intended.

Jeff Ennis: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), I can tell the Minister that this Sunday a firm of solicitors from Cardiff was touting for business in Grimethorpe working men's club in my constituency to try to get miners to pay £300 up front for its services in claiming for miners' knee. Will the Minister join me in frowning on that practice, and will he raise the issue with the Law Society to try to outlaw it?

Wayne David: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, which show that this issue extends way beyond Wales. Solicitors can tout for business in that way, but it is important to recognise that charging £300 or even £345—as in a case that I know of—to expedite a claim is morally wrong, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that our constituents know that Members of Parliament will do everything they can to expedite claims and will forward claims to the Department for Work and Pensions, and that no charge will be made.

Unemployment

Jennifer Willott: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on measures to reduce unemployment in Wales.

Paul Murphy: Last week's Budget announced a further employment package, building on steps taken in the pre-Budget report to respond to rising unemployment, including an extra £1.7 billion for Jobcentre Plus.

Jennifer Willott: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Five years of jobcentre closures and staff cuts have meant that Wales now has 144 jobseekers for every personal adviser, which is nearly double the figure a year ago and means that each adviser has only about 15 minutes a week to help each person into work. Given that unemployment in Wales is likely to rise by a further 50 per cent. over the next year, will the Secretary of State speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that Jobcentre Plus has people in place with enough time to help those who are unemployed find work?

Paul Murphy: Of course I will, but the hon. Lady will accept that a percentage of that £1.7 billion for Jobcentre Plus will go to Wales, and the whole purpose of that spending will be to do the sort of things that she mentioned, with proper advice and sufficient time to talk to people who come to Jobcentre Plus about their own particular difficulties.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend will recall the devastation that was visited on communities in west Wales and the valleys during the 1980s and the early 1990s as a result of two Tory recessions. Does he agree that the policies that were followed then were wrong and left a lasting legacy that meant that under the Labour Government we qualified for special European aid? The way to get out of a recession is not to cut our way out, but to grow our way out.

Paul Murphy: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He will know that long-term unemployment was a scourge in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the Government cannot be an uninterested observer. Government, both in Cardiff and in London, must act, and that is the opposite of what the Conservatives stand for.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), the Secretary of State will know that last year it was announced that 12,000 jobs would be lost in the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions, the equivalent of losing 200 offices. Some 33 towns in Wales are currently without offices. Given that a further £15 billion of cuts are on the way, how many more jobs will be lost in that sector in Wales?

Paul Murphy: Obviously we have to try to preserve all jobs, whether in the public or private sectors. The Government measures announced in the Budget include the money for Jobcentre Plus, the money for the under-25s in Wales and the measures taken over the last couple of months, and they are specifically designed to ensure that jobs are protected. Of course, we cannot avoid some job losses, because they are inevitable in a downturn such as this, but we have to do all that we can to ensure that other jobs are available—thousands of jobs are still vacant in Wales—for people to take.

Si�n James: This has not been an easy time for anybody seeking work, and we in Swansea, East have also faced challenges. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the work that Jobcentre Plus has done is absolutely fantastic. I want to commend the work of our local Jobcentre Plus in Morriston. Will the Secretary of State ensure that publicity and promotion is made available, both for employers experiencing difficulties and for those seeking work, to promote the work of jobcentres?

Paul Murphy: Yes, of course I will ensure that that message is put across. My hon. Friend does a great deal for the people of Swansea in this regard. She will know, of course, that the Labour party conference met very successfully last weekend in Swansea. All the policies to which I have just referred also refer specifically to the problems faced by her constituents in Swansea, East.

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State will be aware that the latest job loss figures from Wales are dire. Unemployment in my constituency has gone up by more than 100 per cent. in the past 12 months. On Friday, I was at my local Jobcentre Plus, which is doing valuable work, but will the Secretary of State say what additional support can be given to those new victims of the recession who need targeted and specialist support? They have a solid and continuous work history, and often a good education, and they might never have been inside a jobcentre in their lives. They need targeted support and they face a very bleak set of circumstances right now.

Paul Murphy: I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he follows the proceedings of the Budget last week and the announcements that followed, he will see that some 7,500 new jobs for young people in Wales could be created by initiatives that the Government have taken over the past couple of days and the money that is going in. At the end of the day, the Government are tackling these issues in a manner that is entirely different from the non-policies of the Opposition.

John Smith: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the Ministry of Defence's policy of sustainable procurement in the defence technical college contract in St. Athan in my constituency? If that policy is adhered to, it will have a dramatic effect on unemployment in south Wales, with planning taking place next month and construction starting next summer.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware that I am in constant contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, particularly on the subject of the defence training academy that is coming to my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend has done a great job in this respect, and this is the biggest single public procurement project ever in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: On 6 November, the Secretary of State announced that a 150 million investment fund to help businesses would shortly be operated through Finance Wales. The chief executive of Finance Wales said that the scheme had been planned for some time. Why did it take six months to launch it, why was it left until the Welsh Labour party conference to do so, and what does he say to the thousands of people who have lost their jobs in the meantime whose businesses might have been helped by that fund? Does shortly mean when politically convenient?

Paul Murphy: I think that the hon. Lady understands that much of the finance that goes into these schemes comes from Europe. That includes money for Finance Wales, and this weekshe is aware of this, as she just made reference to it150 million of new money has come into Wales as a consequence. She asked what I would say to the people of Wales with regard to these issues of unemployment. I would say that her party was in government for 215 months, and that for 205 of those 215 months unemployment levels in Wales were higher than they are today in Welsh constituencies.

Small Businesses

Bob Spink: What recent assessment he has made of the viability of small businesses in Wales.

Paul Murphy: I am in regular contact with Welsh businesses and key stakeholders in Wales, not least at the all-Wales economic summits that I attend regularly.

Bob Spink: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and I welcome Government measures such as the exemption on business rates for vacant business properties and the additional time allowed to pay taxes. We still need to unblock bank lending. Will the Secretary of State say what he will do to achieve that in order to help enterprising people through these tough times?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the key to small business success is the unlocking of funds from the banks. In Swansea a few weeks ago, the all-Wales economic summit met leading bankers in Wales to encourage them to do precisely that. In addition, the new enterprise guarantee fund scheme in Wales has already paid out 8 million to help 90 Welsh firms. That is real action for people in Wales.

Heart of Wales Railway

Martin Caton: What recent discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on developing and improving the Heart of Wales railway line.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on a range of issues, including railways. I should like to pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) has done in campaigning to raise the profile of this extremely important railway line.

Martin Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that this beautiful railway route through Wales and England is not delivering to its full potential at the moment, especially in green tourism? In future, will the UK Government co-operate with the Welsh Assembly Government in developing a strategy to improve the line?

Wayne David: Co-operation on this issue is vital. I give a commitment that we in the Wales Office will ensure that there is maximum co-operation between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government. However, I point out that the Welsh Assembly's Rail Forward programme has set aside some 50 million for investment, which implements the political agreement that has been struck.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

William Cash: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 April.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 1st Battalion Welsh Guards who was killed in Afghanistan yesterday. All those who have lost their lives in conflict deserve our profound gratitude for their service, and we will never forget those who have shown such dedication to our country and to the people of Afghanistan.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

William Cash: May I join the Prime Minister in his condolences to the family in question? Given his recent comedy turn on YouTube, when can we expect another performance?

Gordon Brown: YouTube is one of the most important mediums of communication and, even if the Opposition will not use it, I shall continue to do so.

Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the cases of swine flu that have been diagnosed at Monklands hospital. To reassure my constituents and many other people, will he tell us what plans are in place to deal with this very worrying problem?

Gordon Brown: In addition to the two members of the public in the Monklands area who have contracted swine flu and who I understand are getting better, the House will want to know that there are three further confirmed cases. One is a 12-year-old girl from Torbay, and the other two are adults, one from Birmingham and one from London. All of them travelled recently from Mexico and have mild symptoms. They are all receiving Tamiflu, the treatment that has been effective so far, and are responding well to it. The school in Torbay at which the 12-year-old is educated will close down for the time being, and all pupils will be offered the Tamiflu antiviral.
	I believe that we are making the necessary preparations and taking the precautions that we need to take to prevent the incidence of the disease in this country. I can confirm that we have enhanced airport checks, and that we are advising people not to travel to Mexico unless it is necessary. We will continue to review the position, and at the same time we have decided to build up stocks of antivirals from 35 million doses to 50 million. We are ordering a great many more face masks, and we will send out public information to all citizens in this country. By Tuesday of next week, an information leaflet will be available for every family.
	The World Health Organisation has said that we are one of the best prepared countries. We intend to keep it that way, and to do everything in our power to make sure that people are safe from this worldwide flu.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the soldier from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan yesterday? He died serving our country, and we should honour his memory.
	The whole House will share the Prime Minister's concern about the cases of swine flu and what he has just said, and the whole House will also welcome the steps that the Prime Minister and the Government are taking. May I ask a number of specific questions? First, may I ask about the national flu line? That was supposed to be up and running already, but instead we are currently told, I believe, that it will not be operational until the autumn. Given the importance of making sure that information is available for people, can the Prime Minister tell us what the Government are doing to speed that up?

Gordon Brown: Yes, I am very grateful for the opportunity to explain that, and to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about both our best wishes for those who are affected by the flu and the preparations that we are making to deal with the problems that arise from it. I can say about the flu line that interim arrangements are being made. We signed a contract with BT last year. It is not simply an information line; it is about the availability and distribution of antivirals to people in the country. If that is necessary, that will be done, and we have made arrangements so that that can be done, but of course over the longer term we want to create the flu line, which is to be brought into being when it is necessary. I have to say that the circumstances in which it would be used are not yet reached, and we hope that they will not be reached, but arrangements have been made. If I may say so, the Health Secretary will make a fuller statement to the House this evening about those very issues.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that answer. Clearly, everyone will be concerned that without a flu line, there is a danger that NHS Direct could be swamped.
	There are two further issues on preparedness that I would like to ask about. First, the Prime Minister said that the Government are ordering more stocks of antivirals. Currently, those stocks cover half the population. The Government have accepted that it would be useful to have antivirals not just for treatment, but for prevention. He gave some figures earlier; could he tell us the time scale for getting up to those figures, and what percentage of the population would then be covered?
	The second issue is about face masks; again, the Prime Minister mentioned it. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, has, I believe, raised the matter 15 times in the last four years. The Health Secretary said on Monday that the Government have not yet done enough. Again, could we have a time scale on the issue of face masks as well?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful, again, for the right hon. Gentleman's questions about this, because it allows me to explain to the public everything that is being done, and everything that we intend to do. As far as the antivirals are concerned, we are increasing our order from the 35 million that we now have to 50 million. These are brought into use, normally, only where symptoms of the flu are discovered, so we feel that we are well prepared at the moment, but it is right to increase the coverage of the population, and of course it is right to help national health service staff who may be exposed to the flu.
	As far as face masks are concerned, let me say that there are large numbers in stock but we have got to do more, and we have now ordered, and are ordering, several million more masks. These orders will come in over the next few days and weeks, and we are determined to have what is necessary. May I say, so that there is no confusion on this, that the face masks are what are necessary for the NHS staff? The guidance that has been given by the chief medical officer about what the public can do, and the guidance that we will send out in the information note from next weekit will be on the website a lot earlierwill not refer to a need for the public to have such a face mask. This is for NHS staff who are in circumstances where they come up to people who are perhaps facing, or suffering from, that flu. That is what the face masks are for. I hope that there will be no doubt in the public's mind that the advice given by the chief medical officer over the last few days about how people can best prevent the flu and prepare themselves for it is the advice that we stand by, and the Health Secretary will reinforce that this evening.

David Cameron: May I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and that information? I am sure that at this time, the whole country and the whole House of Commons will want to wish the staff of our national health service well in what may be difficult days ahead.
	May I turn now to the issue of the Gurkhas? The leader of the Liberal Democrats should be congratulated on proposing the Opposition day debate that we are having later today on the Gurkhas. Everyone in this House, I believe, wants to meet the obligations that we owe the Gurkhas. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a solution that can be introduced rapidly, but that is consistent with fair and managed immigration? Does the Prime Minister now accept that the proposals that he has put forward are too restrictive, and as a result will neither honour our obligations nor command public support?

Gordon Brown: May I just reply to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the national health service before I come on to that? We have, of course, issued guidance to every health authoritythey are all involved in dealing with this, even though cases have been confirmed in only four areas of the country. The advice to nurses and other members of the health service is that the antiviral will be available to them. The Health Secretary will give more details on that this evening. We want to protect the staff of the national health service, and as everybody recognises, they do a great job. We are very proud of them, and we will continue to support them in everything that we do with the funds that are necessary.
	Coming on to the subject of the Gurkhas, which has been raised in the motion tabled for debate today, since 1997, we have taken the first action to give justice to the Gurkhas. During that period, the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas in Britain have been agreed, and 6,000 of them have applied successfully and have come into the country. Secondly, we have introduced equal pay and pensions for the Gurkhassomething that had not happened beforeand, thirdly, we doubled the pensions of people staying in Nepal and increased the pension for Gurkhas, especially those at a senior age. I respect the fact that this is a matter of great concern for everybody in the country, but we have to balance our responsibilities to those who have served our country with the finance that we need to be able to meet those obligations, and therefore not base our offer on money that we cannot afford.
	The proposals that we have introduced will increase the number of Gurkhas who can come into this country by 4,000 or, including families, about 10,000 people. We keep the matter under review, and we will review it over the course of the next few months, as the Home Secretary has said. There are 1,300 cases in the pipeline, and we have promised that we will review them by 11 June. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me say that the majority of the 4,000 who are coming into this country are below the rank of officer, and the suggestion that that is not the case is not, from the information that I have, correct. We will continue to review the position over the next period of time, and we will look particularly at the conditions applied to riflemen for their years of service. We will continue to report back to the House on the issue, but I hope that everybody agrees that this is an advance on where we were. Given that there were no rights of settlement for Gurkhas before 1997, within the public spending constraints that we face, we are taking another big step forward.

David Cameron: The problem with the Prime Minister's proposals is that those representing the Gurkhas believe that only 100 or so will be able to settle under his proposals. May I suggest a more straightforward way, as he said that he is prepared to review it, which would be to introduce a new category in the immigration system for people from overseas who have served in the armed forces, principally the Gurkhas? That would give the right of settlement to pre-1997 Gurkhas in an ordered way. Is that not a fair and managed way to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, while allowing those Gurkhas to settle in the UK, dealing with the 1,300 and more besides, because we owe them a debt of gratitude?

Gordon Brown: First of all, the figures that we have announced are 4,000, not 100. They include the families of Gurkhastheir children and descendantsmaking 10,000 in total. I do not accept the figure of 100, and I do not think that it bears mention, given the fact that on past experience, the 6,000 who have come in represent a very high number of the people who had the right of entry for service after 1997. I believe that those figures are realistic, and we are talking about several thousand people coming into the country. The total number of Gurkhas is 36,000, and the estimated public expenditure is about 1.4 billion for meeting those costs.
	We have to work this in stages by balancing the need for the Gurkhas to receive recognition for everything that they have done with the finances that are available, given that we have other problems with which we have to deal at this time. Those who have given 20 years' service, those who have been injured or disabled, and those who have won special honours for gallantry will be welcomed into this country, and I hope that the House recognises that while not everyone is satisfied with what we have done, we have made progress. We can work through this in stages, and continue to review what the right policy is for the future.

David Cameron: I have to say that if the figures were robust, there would not be a huge number of Gurkhas gathering outside the House, including elderly and frail people who served our country, who do not believe that the Government are playing fair. Is it not the case that maintaining the Government's approach will simply mean more delay and more elderly Gurkha veterans dying as they wait for an answer? May I ask the Prime Minister one last time whether he will at least consider the idea of introducing an additional category into the immigration system? There is an immigration Bill passing through Parliament to which it could be added. This would be a responsible and reasonable way of achieving a more generous settlement, which Members right across the House would support.

Gordon Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing this, presumably he knows the numbers involved, but I do not hear either him or the Liberal party saying the numbers that would be involved in this cause. Of course I am prepared to look at it. I will always look at suggestions that are made, so that we can see whether they are applicable, but what I would like the House to consider is that in stages we have made great progress; we must balance the public expenditure requirements of this country with the needs of those who want to come into our country. There are 1,300 cases under review, so I accept that people are waiting for results, but we have promised that these results will come by 11 June. We are determined to honour the service that the Gurkhas give. We have been very proud of what they have done for our country. We have made major changes over the last few years. We are prepared now to make major changes again, and we are prepared to continue to review the situation for the future, but that must be based on proper facts and figures and on the ability to make decisions that we can afford.

Martin Salter: Last December it was my sad duty to attend the funeral in Reading of campaigning Gurkha war veteran Bhim Prasad Gurung, who died in abject poverty while awaiting the outcome of his appeal against the refusal to offer him settlement in the UK. The Prime Minister should be aware that Bhim would have faced deportation under the new guidelines announced on Friday, as he was made redundant after 12 years of brave service and denied his Ministry of Defence pension. Will the Prime Minister be more specific about how quickly he will bring forward his promised 12-month review of the policy, finish the job that the Labour Government started in 2004, and deliver justice for Gurkhas at last?

Gordon Brown: Let me say first that my hon. Friend has been a campaigner on behalf of the Gurkhas, and he has raised the matter with me not only on many occasions, but recently. I can also say that I sympathise with the case of his constituent and the difficulties that he had faced. In the cases where no answers have been given, we have promised that the answers will come by 11 June. On the further reviews that are taking place, the Home Secretary has made it clear that she will continue to review the position. I am very sensitive to the position of the rifleman whom my hon. Friend mentioned. We will look carefully at that over the next few weeks.

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family of the unnamed soldier who tragically lost his life in Afghanistan yesterday. I thank the Prime Minister for the information that he provided to the House on the measures that are being put in place to deal with swine flu. I join in lending the support of all of us to those working in the health system to deal with the crisis.
	The Prime Minister's answers on the Gurkha issue are deeply, deeply evasive. How is it honest or decent to say that Gurkha soldiers who have served 20 years can come and live in this country, when he knows full well that the majority of ordinary Gurkha soldiers serve only 15 years? How is it honest or decent to say that Gurkha soldiers must prove that their illness was caused by their military service, when he knows full well that the frailest Gurkha veterans cannot do that? Can he not see that there is a simple moral principle at stake, and it is this: if someone is prepared to die for this country, surely they deserve to live in this country?

Gordon Brown: It is precisely because we have accepted the importance of treating the Gurkhas well that we made changes in the past few years. We equalised pay and pensions and we doubled the pensions of Gurkhas who are retired in Nepal. It is precisely because we take seriously the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has raised today that we have increased the numbers of those who can come into this country. I have been given the information that half of the 4,000 are below officer class. It is not right to suggest that everybody who can come into the country must be a commissioned officer in the first place.
	I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we are making progress stage by stage on the matter. He has to bear in mind, as he constantly says, that there are public expenditure issues involved. At the moment, 1.4 billion would be a very big sum of money indeed for us to guarantee. We are taking the steps that are necessary, there is more justice for the Gurkhas than there ever was in the years before 1997, and we will continue to do our duty by the Gurkhas who have served this country.

Nicholas Clegg: What kind of answer is that? It is the answer of a man who seems to know that he is doing a shameful thing, but does not have the guts to admit it or change it. It is the answer of a Government who have no principles and no courage. I ask the Prime Minister again: surely simple, ordinary British decency means that soldiers who are prepared to die for this country deserve to live in this country.

Gordon Brown: That is why we have taken the actions over the last few years that we have done. Let me just repeat: we led the way in giving Gurkhas right of settlement in this country, we led the way in equalising pay and pensions, and we led the way in doubling the pensions of those who are in Nepal. Now we are making sure that people with medical conditions and awards for their service to this country, as well as those with 20 years of service, can come into this country. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we believe that large numbers of people will take up that invitation for themselves and their families. But I have to put it to him that Governments must always balance the need to take action in stages with the resources that they have available. It may not be a problem that he has to face: it is a problem that we have to face and we will take the right decisions.

Chris Mullin: Given that the Government are a little strapped for cash at the moment, might this be the moment to reconsider our commitment to spend 20 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, that expenditure is over more than 20 years. As he also knows, we wish to use the fact of our deterrent to bring about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world and to persuade other countries to be part of a process of nuclear disarmament. At the moment there is an opportunity for the major powers to reduce their nuclear weapons and in return we could get agreements about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons from some of the major powers, while at the same time offering them the right that they should have to civil nuclear power. He may remember that the non-proliferation treaty was based on two principles: first, that countries with nuclear weapons would cut their nuclear weapons, and, secondly, that we would give non-nuclear states access to civil nuclear power. Given the pressures that exist at the moment, that is an even more relevant position than it was 50 years ago.

Michael Spicer: Now that fiscal probity is back in vogue, why do we need a Labour Government?

Gordon Brown: Two and a half million extra jobs in 1997, 1 million extra young people in further education and training, 1 million more adults getting education and literacy, a doubling of the national health service and educationall would be put at risk by a Conservative Administration.

Richard Burden: Eight hundred employees of the LDV van-maker in Birmingham, together with thousands more in dealerships and suppliers, face new worries today with the announcement that the company has applied to go into administration in a week or so. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do everything that they can, proactively as well as reactively, to secure a viable owner for the company, with the backing that it needs to allow LDV to realise its potential, including the production of a new generation of electric vans?

Gordon Brown: Yes, we will. My hon. Friend is right. He has taken up the case of the car and vehicle industry in the midlands over many years. We have had substantial talks with the company, LDV, and we have tried to be of help to it. We have said that a range of Government support is available if it has a business model for moving forward that we can work with and support. Obviously, the responsibility for putting the company on a firmer footing has rested with the owner and potential investors, but we have already set aside money to make it possible for the car industry to receive support from Government.

Anne Main: Will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the months of chaos, uncertainty and confusion which surrounded schools in my constituency when post-16 education funding was removed at short notice?

Gordon Brown: We are the party that is offering the guarantee of education to 18 for every young person; we are the party that is bringing in plans from this autumn that every teenager can have education as of right to 18; and we have announced in the Budget the money that will be made available to do so. It is a bit much for the Conservative party to complain about education funding when the first thing that the Conservatives would do is cut it as a result of their plans.

Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the outcome of tomorrow's votes on Sir Christopher Kelly's review of Members' allowances, one thing that the public have the right to expect is full disclosure of all outside influences, including income, who employs Members, who pays them, for how long and also

Hon. Members: Unions!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Clive Efford: There is also the value of [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. Campbell.

Clive Efford: There is also the value and income from blind investment trusts, such as the ones held by millionaires' row on the Opposition Benches.

Gordon Brown: I think that Members should remember that the whole country is looking at our proceedings, and I think also that the whole country wants us to take the action that is necessary to clean up any problems and any abuses that exist in our system.  [ Interruption. ] I must say to all Members who are shouting that they should have some humility, because the public are the taxpayers, and the public pay for the expenses of MPs. We have a duty to put in shape the best measures possible for dealing with that.
	In the last week, we have made more progress than we made for many years. First of all, we are dealing with problems of employment of staff. We are dealing also with the problems that arise from outside interests, and I know that there is a lot of sensitivity on the Opposition Benches as we talk about that. Equally, we are dealing with the problems of London Members living in London at the same time as being in Westminster; we are dealing with the problems of grace-and-favour residences; and we are dealing with a review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life of the problem of the additional costs allowance. That should be based on transparency and attendance in the House, and a lower amount of money should be spent on it than is now. That is the way forward, and I hope that Members will all support the Government's proposals tomorrow.

Nicholas Winterton: The regiment with which I had the honour of serving, the 14th/20th King's Hussars, now the King's Royal Hussars, is able to wear the Gurkhas' cross kukris on their uniform, because of the operations on which we jointly serve. Does the Prime Minister not accept that a huge number of people in this country believe that we must be much less restrictive on allowing Gurkhas, some of whom have sacrificed their lives for this country, to come and live here? On that point, I fully support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Gordon Brown: Yes, we should be less restrictive. That is why we have put forward the proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we can move in stages on this matter. This is a proposal that will allow 4,000 more Gurkhas to come into this country and mean that 10,000 peopletheir families includedwill be able to reside in this country. That is the purpose of our proposal. I hope that he will support it.

Ashok Kumar: In my area of Teesside, the chemical industries made tremendous progress thanks to the policies pursued by our Labour Government, but recently industry has been going through very tough times and there have been plant closures as well as short-time working practices for employees. What policies, support and hope can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents, so that we can deal with the problems that we face and have a successful chemicals sector in the future?

Gordon Brown: We are taking action instead of the Opposition's policy of doing nothing. Some 100,000 companies have benefited from our tax deferral, 350,000 workers are on short time and are getting benefit from our tax credits system, and we are ready to do more to help small, medium-sized and large businesses to look at the provision of guarantees and loans for the future. All over the world, I see Governments who are prepared to act and increase public investment to help people through the recession. The only party I know that refuses to do that is the Conservative party of Britain.

David Gauke: At the last general election, the Labour party promised that it would have a referendum on the European constitution and that it would not raise the higher rate of income tax. Given that the Prime Minister is now going to break both those promises, why should the British people ever believe a word he says again?

Gordon Brown: On the first question of the European referendum, in the German summit to discuss the constitution-that-was, it was decided that the constitutional concept should be abandoned. That was the issue before us. If I may say so, the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not here today, accepted our view that the referendum was not necessary as a result of the changes that have taken place, and he saidthis man is a Front Bencherthat the people who put forward the idea of a referendum were crackpot and daft.
	As for tax, the Conservatives have to make their own decisions, but I believe that at a time when the nation faces difficulties, it is right that the people who have benefited so much as a result of their increase in income over the past few years should pay a little more as a contribution to helping this country through. That money will help people to get jobs, help young people to get training, help to build a low-carbon economy, and help to build our public services. I believe that the majority of people in this country will think that that is the right decision to make for the future of Britain.

David Clelland: In all the complex issues that the Government have to deal with, all the international discussions that have gone on over the past few months, and all the important questions that have to be addressed, is there a single question of any significance whatsoever to which the answer is the Conservative party?

Gordon Brown: No, there is no economic problem we face to which the answer is the Conservative Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Statement, the Prime Minister [ Interruption. ] Order.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, following my visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan earlier this week, I should like to make a statement on the Government's strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	First, I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to all those serving in our armed forces, and remember with gratitude those who have given their lives in the service of our country. As I saw again on Monday, our armed forces are facing enormous challenges with great skill, determination and courage. They are the best in the world, and we are immensely proud of them.
	Our counter-terrorist strategy, published last month, set out how we are working to tackle terrorism around the globe, but one priorityindeed, the greatest international priorityis the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the crucible for global terrorism, the breeding ground for international terrorists, and the source of a chain of terror that links the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain.
	Pakistan and Afghanistan are of course different countries at different stages of development, but as the document we are publishing today emphasises, together they face this shared challenge of terrorism. In Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban are using mines and suicide bombs to carry out attacks on our troops and on innocent civilians. In Pakistan, the army and security services are now dealing with the wider territorial ambitions made clear by the Pakistan Taliban. Last year alone in Pakistan itself, 2,000 civilians and security personnel were killed in terrorist attacks. Suicide bombs in Pakistan, once relatively rare, were used 60 times last year and are at the same level this yearan almost tenfold rise in over two years.
	We know that terrorist leaders are orchestrating attacks around the world from the border areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we know also of the stronger connections that now exist between the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, and between them and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. That requires us to take further, more determined and concerted action.
	In our December 2007 strategy, we made the right long-term decisions for Afghanistan, decisions that were reinforced in the conclusions of the United States' review last month. Now, following our own review to identify what is working and where we need to go further, I want to set out an updated strategy for our actions in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and how we will mobilise our resources to take those actions. In both countries we are working with the elected Governments, including through our commitments to support their economic development and through combined development and stabilisation expenditure of 255 million, 256 million and 339 milliona total of almost 1 billion over three years. In both countries our involvement is focused on the tasks that are necessary to enable them to counter the terrorist threat themselves.
	For Afghanistan, our strategy is to ensure that the country is strong enough as a democracy to withstand and overcome the terrorist threat, and strengthening Afghan control and resilience will require us to intensify our work in the following key areas. First, we will build up the Afghan police and army and the rule of law, and we should now adopt the stated goal of enabling district by district, province by province handover to Afghan control. Secondly, we want to strengthen Afghan democracy at all levels, including by ensuring credible and inclusive elections and improving security through that period. Thirdly, we want to help strengthen local government in Afghanistan, not least the traditional Afghan structures such as the local shuras. Fourthly, we want to give people in Afghanistan a stake in their future, promoting economic development as the best way of helping the Afghan people to achieve not just stability but prosperity.
	In Pakistan, our strategy to tackle the same underlying problem of terrorism results in different proposals. First, we want to work with the elected Government and the army, but while Afghanistan's forces are at an early stage and so international forces have to play a front-line role, by contrast Pakistan has a large and well funded army, and we want to work with it to help it counter terrorism by taking more control of the border areas. Secondly, not least through support for education and development, we want to prevent young people from falling under the sway of violent and extremist ideologies.
	Let me address the proposals in turn. As I said to the House in December 2007, success in strengthening Afghanistan to withstand terrorism will ultimately depend on building the Afghans' capacity to take control of their own security, so we want to work to build up the Afghan army from its current strength of 80,000 to a total of 134,000 by late 2011. I believe that we will need even greater numbers than that for the future. Already 300 of our forces in Helmand are dedicated to training them. Nationally, we are leading the training of non-commissioned officers and have trained over 18,000, and together with France we have also trained over 1,000 army officers. As many Members know, Afghan army brigades have fought bravely alongside our troops, as we saw in a major operation to drive insurgents out of Nad Ali earlier this year, and 90 per cent. of the Afghan public see their army as an honest and fair institution.
	However, the same is not yet true of the police, and that must be achieved if Afghans are to spread the rule of law throughout their country. We have 120 civilian and military advisers working with the police, and I can tell the House that, as resources are freed from the south as the US moves in, we will over time shift the balance of our operations away from front-line combat and towards an enhanced contribution to training both the army in Afghanistan and its police.
	At its 60th anniversary summit last month, the NATO alliance unanimously agreed that supporting the Afghans to build a stronger democratic Afghanistan was its highest priority. Afghanistan is about to hold its second presidential election. A safe, credible and inclusive election is essential. We are providing 15 million for election support, and President Karzai has given me further personal assurances about his determination to ensure credible, inclusive elections. I also reiterated to him the concerns that we and the whole world have about the Shi'a family law, and I welcome his decision to review that draft Bill. I urged him to step up his Government's efforts to tackle the corruption that has discouraged Afghans from backing democracy against the Taliban, and I made it clear that we will support the Afghan Government as they take forward the process of reconciliation.
	Our aim is to divide, isolate and then remove the insurgents and offer those prepared to renounce violence and accept the Afghan constitution the prospect of work and security. However, those who refuse must prepare for a long and difficult battle, in which there can be only one winner: democracy and a strong Afghan state.
	Just as the Afghans need to take control of their own security, they also need to build legitimate governance. We will strengthen our efforts on localisation, civilianisation and the promotion of economic development so that Afghan people have a stake in their future. Our local joint civilian and military teams are supporting the Afghan social outreach programme in Helmand. In key districts, we are helping district governors reach out to the traditional tribal system through shuras, which, as I saw on Monday, are now empowering local solutions to local problems. To support that, we have doubled the number of deployed civilian experts. We are encouraging other countries to follow that example and urging the United Nations to play a greater role in co-ordinating the civilian effort. Last month, the Secretary of State for International Development announced an additional 50 million for development assistance. Today he is publishing his Afghanistan country plan.
	Britain remains Afghanistan's third biggest donor, with more than 500 million committed over the next four years. In Helmand, that allows us to support the building of a road to Lashkar Gah and the refurbishment of the hydropower dam, from which up to 200,000 people will benefit through irrigation. We are also investing 30 million over four years to work with the Government on a new programme of agricultural support, which includes the wheat-seed programme in Helmand as a viable alternative to poppy and, nationally, improved access to credit so that more Afghans can invest in farming.
	Following my visit last December, the Defence Secretary and I approved a temporary increaseuntil Augustin the number of British troops deployed to Afghanistan, from just over 8,000 to around 8,300. Now, to strengthen security throughout the election period, I have authorised a further increase to 9,000 until the autumn. To ensure that our forces are properly protected, especially from the growing threat of mines and roadside bombs, we will deploy permanent additional units for that purpose. Some are in the process of deploying now, with others joining them soon. After the election and through the autumn, we plan to return our troop numbers to 8,300. As always, we will keep the position under review, based on the situation on the ground.
	I am determined that Britain will fulfil its international commitments. I believe that, with a deployment of more than 8,000 troops, concentrated in the Taliban heartland of the south, and with the additional costs of the reservewhich increased from 700 million in 2006 to 1.5 billion in 2007-08, then to 2.6 billion in 2008-09, with last week's Budget estimating 3 billion for 2009-10we are shouldering our share of the burden in Afghanistan. As more NATO troops deploy to the south, we will be able to share that burden more fairly. At the NATO summit this year, allies offered around 5,000 more troops in addition to the extra 21,000 combat and training troops that the United States plans to deploy, many of whom are destined for the south. I also welcome the additional Australian deployment announced this morningan extra 450 personnel, bringing the total of Australian troops to around 1,550.
	We will continue to place the highest priority on the safety of our forces, providing the necessary funding, with more than 1 billion in urgent operational requirements for vehicles in the past three years, including Mastiff patrol vehicles, which are among the best protected in the world. We have increased helicopter numbers and flying hours by 60 per cent. in the past two years.
	It has become increasingly clear in the past year just how crucial Pakistan and its border areas with Afghanistan have become to stability in Afghanistan and to our national security at home. Those border areas are used by violent extremists as a base for launching attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. As President Obama said, al-Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within. Although the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are different and require distinct approaches, we can no longer consider the terrorist threats arising in the two countries in isolation from each other.
	While in Pakistan I met President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and former Prime Minister Sharif and we discussed stronger action against terrorism and violent extremism. We are agreeing clear shared principles for our bilateral relationship: that terrorism and violent extremists present the most significant threat to both Britain and Pakistan; and that, throughout Pakistan and especially in the border areas, there must be long-term good governance and economic development to underpin progress on security.
	To deliver on those principles we agreed an enhanced strategic dialogue to bring together our senior diplomatic, military and intelligence teams on a more regular basis. We will support that closer co-operation immediately, through a 10 million programme of counter-terrorism capacity-building, working with Pakistan's police and security services. As Pakistan steps up the fight on terrorism, so we will focus greater attention on the basic human challenges that Pakistan still faces in education, health and respect for human rights, in each of which failure serves only to fuel radicalisation.
	Britain's development programme in Pakistan will become our second largest worldwide. We will provide 665 million in assistance over the next four years, but we will refocus much of our aid, including more than 125 million of education spending, on the border areas of Pakistan. We are working for the establishment of a World Bank trust fund for development in those border areas and we will press other countries to increase their contribution. With UK support, the recent Friends of Pakistan meeting and the donor conference in Tokyo have already delivered pledges of $5 billion over the next two years. Next month President Zardari will visit the UK. We will take forward our shared efforts to tackle terrorism. We will support economic development and harness the international community's assistance for Pakistan, but we will also continue our discussions to agree a concordat to strengthen our practical co-operation to meet all the terrorist challenges.
	Forty countries and more have shown the international community's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. In December 2007 we led the way with our proposals to complement the brave action of our troops by building up the Afghan army and police and local government to give Afghans more control over their own affairs. Tackling terrorism in and from the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan drives forward our new set of proposals today. We will complement the necessary military action with economic, social and political progress aimed at building stronger and more effective democracies and strengthening the ability of the Afghan and Pakistan authorities to take greater responsibility for action against terrorism, building the strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan upon which their security and our security here in Britain ultimately depend. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for giving his statement today, although for a minute it was quite a close-run thing.
	There are many things in the statement that we agree with. Above all, we can agree that the professionalism, dedication and courage of our armed forces personnel in Afghanistan are incredibly impressive. I have been three times in the past three years, and whether one is up the Helmand valley at Sangin, in Lashkar Gah or back at base in Camp Bastion, they are people of whom we can be incredibly proud. They have that can-do attitude, but we must always be careful as politicians not to take too much advantage of the fact that the Army and our armed services are always there and ready to serve.
	I want to ask the Prime Minister about three areas: first, our overall strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan; secondly, the situation in Afghanistan, particularly with respect to the elections; and finally, the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. Last month President Obama set out a new US strategy, which he summed up in a single sentence:
	to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.
	Is it not essential that our strategy is as tightly defined, as hard-headed and as realistic as that? We are not in the business of trying to create a new Switzerland in the Hindu Kush; we want to help provide security and deny al-Qaeda those training bases. President Obama also stressed that the Americans would not just press on blindly with their strategy, but would regularly assess whether they were making real progress against clear benchmarks and would hold themselves accountable. Given that we have been in Afghanistan for almost eight years now, what plans does the Prime Minister have to do the same here in Britain?
	Next, on preparations for the August elections and the planned increase in troop numbers, we have said that we would be ready to support an increase for the elections, as long as it was clearly justified and backed up by extra equipment, such as helicopters and adequate force protection. In his statement, the Prime Minister gave some figures for the helicopter hours and capacity up to now; can he give us the future figures that will accompany the increase in troops for the election?
	The Prime Minister talked about our NATO allies sharing a fairer burden in Afghanistan, as was announced at the recent NATO summit. Can he tell us when this commitment will be delivered, and how many of the extra troops will be based in southern Afghanistan? I believe that he said in his statement that many of them would be in south Afghanistan; can he tell us how many?
	The US has announced a substantial troop reinforcement of 21,000 troops, including another 8,000 for Helmand province. Will the Prime Minister tell the Housein some detail, if possiblehow the US forces will fit into the command chain in Helmand and Regional Command (South), and what implications their arrival will have for the combined British effort in Helmand?
	No Afghan really likes the presence of foreign soldiers on Afghan soil, and the sooner we can safely reduce that number, the better. So it is right that we press ahead with the Afghanisation of the effort to bring security to that country. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that the Afghan national police have been seen as the weakest link in the security chain. Does he really believe that progress is now being made? The stories that we hear when we are there are pretty horrific. Progress is clearly much better in the army, but it is still reported that there is serious under-representation of Pashtuns in the army. Will the Prime Minister tell us what is being done about that?
	It will clearly be difficult for the elections to be free and fair. Will the Prime Minister tell us what progress has been made on electoral registration and whether the Government expect that it will be possible for proper independent monitoring of the elections to take place?
	Next, what happens in Pakistan is clearly as important for our security as what happens in Afghanistan, so for the purposes of our strategy we should treat them as one. The plotters of 9/11, the killers of Benazir Bhutto, the men who bombed London, and many others involved in many plots against our country either came from or were trained in western Pakistan, in the federally administered tribal areas extending all the way down to Baluchistan. That is where al-Qaeda remains active.
	Pakistan, as we all know, has an enormous standing army, but it is configured for a conventional battle against a perceived external threat. It is not designed to deal with the sort of existential threat that Pakistan now faces from within. The Prime Minister talked about providing the assistance that Pakistan needs to train and equip its forces to deal with that threat. Did he meet the heads of the army on this visit? As things stand, what is his assessment of the Pakistan armed forces' ability to come to grips with the Taliban's continuing advance towards Islamabad? Are reports accurate that the Taliban are setting up militant training camps in the areas that they currently occupy, such as the Swat valley, and that many young people are joining those camps?
	Will the Prime Minister also comment on what is being done to disrupt the activities of the Quetta shura, which, by all accounts, exerts a malign and controlling influence on both sides of the border? Can he comment on specific reports that the Quetta shura holds meetings around Pakistan, including a recent one in Karachi?
	We all welcome the increase in UK aid that the Prime Minister has announced. Will he tell us how that aid will be linked to Pakistan's performance in fighting terrorism? In particular, what help will the Government offer Pakistan to deal with extremist propaganda? Ambassador Holbrooke, who was in Britain recently, has drawn attention to the scores of low-wattage radio stations operating in the Swat valley. Apparently, night after night, they broadcast lists of people who are going to be executed. What are we doing to help the Pakistanis to jam those radio stations?
	Terrorism and extremism must be confronted, but we must do that by working with the Government of Pakistan, and by drawing on our long history and knowledge of that country to help them to deal with the mortal threat that they now face. Does that not require patient, steady work to build up relationships and close ties with Pakistan? Is that not the vital role for Britain, now and in the future?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for that level of agreement about what the strategy has to be, now and in the future, and I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the focus has to be greater than ever on the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, from where so much terrorist activity happens. We all have a shared interest: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Britain. Two thirds of the attacks or plots in Britain come from Pakistan, and 2,000 Pakistanis died last year and as many are dying this year as a result of terrorist plots. We know that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been active in killing not just British soldiers but civilians who refuse to abide by their wishes.
	In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions, yes, it is right to focus the Pakistan army and security services on the border areas. It is true that the federally administered tribal areas and the North West Frontier have never been fully brought under control by a democratic Government in Pakistan. It is also true, however, that there are 120,000 troops from Pakistan on the Afghan border, although of course the major effort has been reserved for protecting the border with India. We are working with the Pakistani army, so that it can be trained in counter-terrorism capability. Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, was with me in Pakistan and met General Kiani, the head of the Pakistani forces. There is ever closer co-operation between our two countries on these issues, and we have put 10 million immediately into counter-terrorism support in Pakistan. At the same time, we want to see regular conferences at diplomatic, military and political levels to look at the problems that we face.
	It is true that there are well publicised incidents in Pakistan of the Pakistan Taliban gaining more control, but it is also true that there have been huge operations by the Pakistan armytwo days ago, yesterday and, I believe, todayto take on the Taliban. The army has been very active in trying to deal with this issue. There was of course a motion passed in the Pakistan Assembly that allowed sharia law in a particular place, but I believe that the parliamentarians are now reconsidering that decision.
	On Afghanistan, it is right to say that police training has been slow. It is therefore essential that we do more. There is a big NATO effortthe Germans were in the leadand it is important, as we discuss these things with the Americans and our European partners, that the emphasis is on training the Afghan army and police. The Afghan army is to rise to 134,000. My own view, and that of the Defence Secretary, is that that will still be too small a number, given the terrain in Afghanistan, and that we will probably have to train far more Afghan soldiers. That is why a lot of our resources will be devoted to training.
	We are reconfiguring our troops in Afghanistan for one very precise reason: the tactics of the Taliban have become those of guerrilla warfare. The use of roadside devices and improvised explosive devices has become common, and we have to prepare and arm our troops to deal with that problem and reconfigure our numbers in those areas where there has been significant trouble. When I was in Lashkar Gah, an operation was going on not so far away, and the bravery and dedication of our troops in clearing the areas so that they can sustain communities that are free from the Taliban was very impressive indeed.
	The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of development expenditure. He is absolutely right to say that we are trying to combine the measures, militarily and politically, that will help to strengthen the Afghan state and Pakistani democracy, while, as they take on the terrorists, providing support for development so that people can see that they have a stake in the future. In the northern part of Pakistan, we are offering a very substantial redirection of aid, enabling 300,000 childrengirlsto go to school, and the provision of books that will teach people the history of Pakistan and not the teaching of the madrassahs. That additional expenditure on education goes side by side with what we are trying to do to restore and gain democratic footholds in those areas.
	In Afghanistan, the key areas are not just education and health. There are 6.5 million children at school, and we have been building health centres, but there is also new development on roads, the building of dams and irrigation in agriculture. The agricultural seed programme is very successful. I talked to Governor Mangal in Helmand, and he believes that all those things are moving forward. Our strategy is therefore exactly the same as the American strategy announced a month or two ago. In December 2007, we set down the idea of Afghanisation as the way forward, and our strategy now is to back up democratically elected Governments and to ensure that the elections are fair15 million has been put into election organisation. Incidentally, electoral registration has been going very well. There could be two rounds in the election and there must be proper monitors. We have to bring in people from outside to perform that role, but on this occasion there must be Afghan monitors as well.
	Our strategy is to combine support for the developing institutions of Afghanistan and of Pakistan with development aid, so that people know that they have an economic and social stake in the future. I believe that that is the right strategy not just for Afghanistan and Pakistan, but for Britain.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and very much welcome his decision to visit those two countries and increasingly to deal with them togetherthat has to be rightjust as I warmly welcome the move from the Obama Administration in Washington to engage with neighbouring powers such as Iran, Russia and China on the region's stability.
	I join the Prime Minister and others in commending the extraordinary work of our troops in Afghanistan. They really do an outstanding job in exceptionally difficult circumstances, but it is clear that public support here at home for the conflict is under strain. We support the decision to send more troops to Helmand to get the job done. Given the overstretch of our armed forces, I understand why we are sending only a small number, but does he agree that the worst of all worlds would be to send reinforcements without committing enough resources to do the job properly? Our brave servicemen and women need to be able to improve securitynot just hold the line against the Talibanif we are to be able to bring this deployment to an end.
	When President Obama launched his new strategy on Afghanistan a few weeks ago, he talked about an exit strategy, though understandably for the moment with no timetable. Will the Prime Minister tell me about the preparations and criteria for the NATO and British exit strategy in his approach? Does he agree that long-term stability will be achieved in Afghanistan only if we can secure the country's economic and social development, and deliver a major increase in the size and quality of the Afghan security forces, especially the police? He has spoken a great deal about that already.
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that because, I imagine, no Afghan Government for the foreseeable future will be able to afford adequate security forces, the international community will have to commit to long-term funding support? If so, what will Britain's long-term funding contribution be?
	It is clearit seems to me, at leastthat the international community may find itself committed to Afghanistan for many years. So, to ensure that our forces have the right resources for that and other deployments in the future, will the Prime Minister agree to a full strategic defence review to ensure that we plan for the needs of peacekeeping and asymmetric warfare, not cold war era state-to-state conflict?
	Moving on to Pakistan, there are serious concerns about that country's stability, not least because it is a nuclear-armed state. Its future is obviously of immense concern to us all. Will the Prime Minister tell us what progress was made in ensuring that those weapons, whose very existence is a huge risk in this tinderbox region, are kept in safe hands?
	Britain has a unique role to play, given our historical relationship with Pakistan and the large Pakistani community here in Britain, so does the Prime Minister accept that his rather clunking remarks at the height of a counter-terrorism operation that did not even lead to any charges being brought were the perfect example of how to raise anxieties both within Pakistan and in communities in Britain?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry to start on a discordant note, but the duty of the Government is to protect the citizens of our country, and we have to take what action we think is necessarybased on decisions made by the police and, in cases, the judiciaryto protect the security of the citizens of our country. That is exactly what we did and exactly what we will continue to do.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's points about Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are raising the number of troops during the election period to 9,000 to ensure that the elections can proceed without intimidation and without violence, following the registration of the voters. I am confidentbecause of that increased number and because 10 other countries have committed to provide additional troops during this period to the tune of 5,000, as well as the additional representation of American forcesthat we will see an election that I hope will be free and fair. It will need Afghan monitors as well as outside monitors for the terrain to be fully covered, but I hope that we have taken the measures necessary for that.
	On the longer-term strategy for Afghanistan, I repeat that our aim is that Afghan people themselves can take more control over their own affairs, so I see a process where, province by province, as has happened in Kabul, Afghan control can be established in the different areas of the country, obviously starting with the north. Parts of the Helmand area could, over time, be passed over to local control. For that, we need greater Afghan army numbers and greater professionalism on behalf of the Afghan police. We also need to support the local shuras and local government in the tasks that they carry out, and that is what we intend to do.
	America is bringing troops into the south because that is the area of greatest difficulty. To answer a point that the Leader of the Opposition made that I did not answer earlier, everybody will be working under the ISAF arrangements, including the Americans in the south.
	On Pakistan, I agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that there is a need to tackle terrorism at all levels. We will continue to do that.
	Three years ago, we spent about 700 million on Afghanistan. That is rising to 3 billion next year. That enormous cost is being met by the British taxpayer to ensure security in Afghanistan, and of course in the border areas, to prevent terrorism in Britain and to strengthen the Afghan democracy. We want others to join us in sharing that burden in Afghanistan.
	On defence strategy as a whole, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, looking at the documentation over these last 10 years and more, that we have been consistently reviewing our strategy since the end of the cold war. Nobody could have expected some of the events, particularly those after September 2001, that have affected our country and many others. We must have a defence strategy that is not only consistent but able to respond to whatever events happen round the world.

Des Browne: First, may I offer my personal condolences to the family, friends and comrades of the soldier in the 1st Battalion, the Welsh Guards, who gave his life this week in Afghanistan?
	My admiration for our troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and for the civilians who support them, knows no bounds. Over the time in which I had the privilege of visiting them regularly, I became very concerned as to whether the vocabulary that I had at my disposal was adequate to express my admiration for them. We tend to repeat the same phrases all the time, but those are the only words we have. We have enormous admiration for our troops, and it grows every time we see them.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome the publication of a revised strategy. It shows confidence to revisit and revise the strategy, as that suggests that we are reflecting and are on the right lines. My experience in this area suggests to me that almost every other country in this alliance will probably do the same thing now that we have done it. In the past, we have tended to have given them permission to put such thoughts in writing and to develop a strategy because we have done so.
	Over the coming weeks, a proliferation of tests will be applied to the strategy to see whether it is correct, but the only test that matters is whether it goes with the grain of the communities that we are trying to serve in Helmand province and beyond, in the Afghan-Pakistan area. That is why the fact that the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please have a seat. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not wish to be cruel, but he is now on the Back Benches and the difficulty is that there must be only one supplementary? This is not an opportunity for a speech. Out of respect, will he please finish? He will know next time.

Des Browne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I apologise.
	At the shura that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended, what did the tribal leaders tell him that the people they represent want? Did their requests fit with the grain of the strategy?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my friend, who served with great distinction at the Ministry of Defence. There is great respect for him right across the Chamber of the House.
	I visited one of the shuras in Helmand, at Lashkar Gah, and the message I got was very simple: people want security, and they want it to be guaranteed by our presence, a stronger Afghan army and a stronger Afghan police force. They want that security to be the basis on which they can build prosperity for their families, making use of the agricultural land in that area while at the same time getting education and health care for their families.
	It is very clear that we are responding to the wishes of the Afghan people. That is why it is so important that we unite in our strategy of dividing, defeating and, eventually, decommissioning the terrorist forces that operate there.

Peter Tapsell: Bearing in mind that there are probably more potential international terrorists in Britain than in the Tora Bora mountains, may I nevertheless congratulate the Prime Minister, no doubt under the influence of the new American Administration, on at last moving away from the political and strategic follies of the last seven years, and on making a much more realistic assessmentthat the war in Afghanistan cannot be won by foreign military forces, that the existence of foreign forces in Afghanistan radicalises Pakistan, and that Pakistan is a far greater problem because it is a nuclear power and a vastly bigger country with a vastly bigger population? May I give my advice, which is that we should give every encouragement to the Pakistan army to resume political control of that almost ungovernable country before there is an international nuclear catastrophe?

Gordon Brown: Pakistan has been under military rule for half its existence, and people, including the army, want to see a democratic Pakistan taking control of its own affairs and being able to deal with the terrorist problems in its midst. On reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right course, not only now but for the future. Of course we must take action against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that is exactly what we are doing. We are working closely with not only the American Government but 40 other partners in NATO to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: In six months' time, British troops will have been in Afghanistan for almost eight years. Now the numbers are going up to 9,000 and the conflict is spreading over into Pakistan. Is it not just a matter of time before the conflict spreads over for real into Pakistan, and British troops are also deployed there? Is it not time for a complete rethink of the whole strategy, which is beginning to look awfully like that which sucked the Americans deeper and deeper into Vietnam and ended up with a humiliating retreat 15 years later?

Gordon Brown: In the seven years that we have been in Afghanistan, a democracy has been established for the first time, the Taliban have been removed from power and 6 million children are going to school, a third of those children are girls who never got the chance of education before. We are building health care centres with the Afghan people, and we are now trying to build up an Afghan democracy, which has a strong army and police force to protect itself against terrorism. I agree with my hon. Friend that the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan are the source of many of the terrorist problems faced not only by that region but around the world. The way to deal with that is to work with the Afghan people and the Pakistan people to defeat that terrorist threat.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the decision that recognises the simple fact that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan effectively does not exist and is completely porous. But will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that additional aid to the two countries will first go towards poverty reduction, which will be its prime purpose, and that the rights of women and human rights will be respected by the Governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan? Given President Karzai's statement that the last leader who stood up for the rights of women was the king in 1929, who was assassinated, and that he did not want to follow his example, that is not leadership that we should respect. We should require him to understand what that international support is for.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been involved in international development for many years, for sharing his knowledge with the House. The Shi'a family law is completely unacceptable and we have made it clear to President Karzai that in our view it is a breach of the Afghan constitution, which respects human rights. Yesterday, at the press conference we held, he said that he accepted that anything that breached the constitution and undermined the fundamental rights of people in his country could not be an acceptable law for the future. We will continue to press him on that issue.
	The right hon. Gentleman is also right that the focus of our development spending is on providing opportunities that help people out of poverty, and that includes the increased spending on education in Pakistan. According to our knowledge, it is correct that people can get free education, board and lodging at madrassahs, but must then submit to an extremist ideology as part of that education. If we can increase the number of schools in Pakistan, and particularly the opportunities for girls to get education, that will make a huge difference in the long term to how Pakistani people see their future, free of terrorism. That is exactly what we will do.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has rightly reminded the House that Pakistan and its people have been great victims of terrorism yet, despite that, the overwhelming majority remain wedded to democracy. In accepting that his proposals for greater economic assistance to Pakistan are important in showing that democracy has its own rewards, will he remind all our allies in Washington and elsewhere that in any military action it is necessary to work to sustain the democratic institutions of Pakistan, not undermine them?

Gordon Brown: That was well expressed by the Pakistani leaders I met yesterday, who are worried about the airspace incursions. At the same time, the Pakistani leadership wish to rid themselves of the al-Qaeda elements that operate in their country, and know that the focus of al-Qaeda's organisation and bases has moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan. We must find ways of working with them to deal with the terrorist threat, and we will do so.

Malcolm Rifkind: If, as the Prime Minister has indicated, the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban are now working closely together and co-operating, is it not about time that the Afghan Government and the Pakistan Government showed a similar degree of co-operation? Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the major problems is that since 1948 the Afghan Government have consistently refused to recognise the frontier between their two countries as permanent? Will the Prime Minister speak to President Karzai and encourage him to recognise that frontier? Without that, many in Pakistan will continue to be ambivalent, to put it mildly, about working closely with the Afghan Government?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right about some of the existing problems, and I respect his knowledge. I spoke to President Karzai on Monday about those issues, and I also spoke to President Zardari about them. Afghanistan and Pakistan need to come together to consider what issues they can address in common, including agreements about the border areas. It will be difficult to get an agreement on the border line over a short period of time, but such cross-border co-operation, which has not occurred before, is possible. Six co-ordination centres exist at the moment, and we need to do more to expand co-operation between the Afghan army and the Pakistan armypolice numbers are limited, but we must ensure that they co-operate in future as well. Next week, President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Zardari of Pakistan will go together to Washington for a meeting with President Bush[Hon. Members: Obama.] Yes, I apologisewith President Obama. They will have that meeting to discuss their common issues in terms of dealing with terrorist and security problems. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we wish to have the same level of co-operation, with them both working together with us.

Alan Simpson: I welcome the list of initiatives that the Prime Minister mentioned in relation to development, democracy and diplomacy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does he accept, however, that the line that cannot be crossed would be one that saw any involvement of UK troops, either conventional or special forces, in Pakistan? Does he agree that that would inevitably lead to a civil war in Pakistan, and to wider hostility to the presence of western forces in the region as a whole? Will he assure the House that under no circumstances will UK forces be given a remit to cross that frontier?

Gordon Brown: I think that my hon. Friend is finding difficulties where they do not exist. The issue is not that but how we can support and back up both the Afghan and Pakistan army and police forces, and we will continue to do that. If we are to fight terrorism, co-operation will be necessary. As the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned, Afghanistan and Pakistan must learn to work together to deal with their common problems. We can assist in that, but I believe that there is a will from Presidents Karzai and Zardari for that co-operation to happen.

James Arbuthnot: At the end of this very good statement, and in view of the close connection between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, the instant communication between our two countries, the general instability in that region and Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, does the Prime Minister agree that these issues are of supreme importance to this country and that they affect us very deeply and closely? Will he make it one of the highest priorities of his Government to renew the effort to persuade the people of this country that this is our battle and that we must continue to fight alongside the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan until we win it?

Gordon Brown: I shall do so. I think it is very important for the country to be informed about the dangers that come from both the Pakistan border and the Afghan border. If we have been able to show something today, it is that the greater co-operation between the terrorist groups that operate across these borders must be dealt with by a more sophisticated and more effective strategy for the future. That is why we want to increase Afghan and Pakistan army and police work in those areas, where it has been limited in the past, and why we are also prepared to work with the Americans and others to increase the counter-terrorism capability, and its financing, of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the threat of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom comes mainly from those areas of the world that we have been talking about today, and people should know that the chain of terror that goes from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Britain can be broken only by co-operation between all Governments over the next few years.

Hugh Bayley: The security that ISAF provides is essential to Afghanistan's future, but ultimately democracy and human rights will not be won on the battlefield; they will be won through winning the hearts and minds of the people on both sides of the border. A new World Bank trust fund for development in the border areas will help the Government of Pakistan to win hearts and minds. The United States is the biggest donor to the region by a long margin, but, unlike the United Kingdom, it has not, in the past, put much money through the Afghan trust funds. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with President Obama about US funding for the new trust fund and for the Afghanistan trust funds? Will the United States be putting more money through the trust funds and spending less on bilateral projects?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I know the interest that he has taken in this matter as a member of the Select Committee on International Development. The Secretary of State for International Development has just been explaining to me how the United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSAIDand the Department for International Development are working well together on those very issues. It is absolutely right that in so far as there is a co-ordination of military activity, there should also be a co-ordination of development activitythat is what we intend to see happen over the next few months.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I add my condolences to the family and friends of the Welsh Guardsman who was killed?
	I thank the Prime Minister for an early copy of his statement. Given the pivotal role that the UK police played in the Balkans and have played in Iraq, will the Prime Minister ensure that as soon as the security situation permits it, UK police forces will play a pivotal role in training a good Afghan police service?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that British police have helped around the world in establishing the civil order that is necessary in countries that are reconstructing themselves. I believe that over the long term we will have to have some form of organisation comprising civil people from the police, the fire brigades and the legal professions that can help rebuild countries in difficulty. In Afghanistan, the British police could work with the European and NATO force squad that is trying to strengthen police training in Afghanistan. He is right to say that we have a big role to play in helping to develop the police in that country.

Keith Vaz: In his welcome discussions on counter-terrorism with the President and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, did the Prime Minister discuss Operation Pathway? Did he take the opportunity to visit our entry clearance operation in Islamabad, where Pakistanis seeking to come to this country as students are not routinely interviewed in personthey are interviewed on the telephone? Will he pledge to give whatever resources are needed to boost our entry clearance operation?

Gordon Brown: Yes, indeed. Biometric visas now have to be obtained by students coming into this country and interviews can take place where that is judged necessary. The rate at which applications have been refused has increased very substantially, and, of course, as a result of a review, the number of colleges in Britain that are registered to accept students from abroad has been radically reduced from 4,000 to 1,500. We are doing what we can to prevent people who may be falsely claiming to be students from coming into our country. At the same time, as I said to President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and former Prime Minister Sharif, we welcome Pakistan's students coming to our country for the purposes of educationmore than 10,000 do so. Those links are an important means to build relationships between our two countries in the future, but we must be able to act where there is suspicion of terrorist activity.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Prime Minister accept that the success of this strategy will depend on the co-operation and support of allies? Given that this is a NATO operation in Afghanistan, how far is the strategy that he has announced consistent with NATO's strategy? Has he discussed this with, and had it endorsed by, our NATO partners? In relation to those same partners, what steps has he taken to persuade those who have imposed caveats on the use of their armed forces in Afghanistan to withdraw those caveats so as to ensure that they make a much stronger and more effective military contribution?

Gordon Brown: This is exactly what we talked about when we had a full discussion of these matters at the NATO summit. We discussed how other countries could play their part in sharing the burden in Afghanistan. As I said earlier, 10 countries announced that they would deploy at least some more troops for the period of the election. I believe that our strategy is very much in line with the new thinking that is developing across NATO, and it is of course in line with President Obama's statement of the past few weeks. I believe that addressing the terrorist areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan together will form a bigger feature of NATO's thinking and that of others in the times to come. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we expect other countries to share the burden too.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether you could help me in defending Back Bencher rights against the office of the Prime Minister in relation to written questions. A few years ago, I tabled a parliamentary written question to the previous Prime Minister asking that he instruct Ministers, Departments and Government agencies to stop responding to MPs' constituency letterssuch letters are written on House of Commons paper and have a House of Commons address, thus suggesting that the office of the MP in question is in the House of Commonsby replying to either the office of the political party of the MP in their constituency or what they assumed was the MP's office, unless the MP had specified that that was where they wanted responses to constituency casework to be taken up. The previous Prime Minister replied to my written question, saying that it was wrong for Ministers and Departments to take that approach, unless it had been specified by an individual MP.
	Unfortunately, as I have found in my experience, the habit is starting again, so I tabled an identical question earlier this week to the current Prime Minister asking him if he, as head of the Government, would instruct Ministers, and their Departments and their agencies, to write to MPs at the House of Commons only, unless they had been told to do otherwise. Given that I assumed that only the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, can instruct his Ministers, I was rather disappointed to receive a letter from No. 10 in the past 40 minutes stating the following:
	The Prime Minister has asked me to inform you that he is transferring the following questions
	about this matter
	for...answer...to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
	To my mind, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he agrees with my hypothesis, does not have the same authority as the Prime Minister to instruct Ministers. Surely the Prime Minister should be replying to this and taking action if he agrees with me, as the previous Prime Minister did. Is there anything you can do, Mr. Speaker, to stop the transfer of the answer to this question, as that will possibly dilute the effectiveness of getting action taken to ensure that replies to MPs' correspondence are sent here, if that is where the relevant MP's office is and where they wish the reply to be sent?

Mr. Speaker: It seems that in this point of order the hon. Gentleman is comparing the previous Prime Minister with the present one. The best way of answering that is by saying that Prime Ministers are a bit like Speakers: no two work the same way. The Prime Minister is entitled, if he so wishes, to pass the legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has tabled to one of his Ministers, and that is what he has done, just as the previous Prime Minister decided that he would answer the question himself. They both have a different way of working, and it is up to the Prime Minister.

Simon Burns: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek guidance on one specific point. As the Head of Government, a Prime Minister has the power to issue a blanket instruction to Ministers to behave in a certain way. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not the Prime Minister, so would he have the authority to order all Ministers to do this?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has ordered the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, and that seems reasonable. The Prime Minister has delegated the power to one of his Ministers, as he is entitled to do. We can go no further.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You can imagine my surprise this morning on finding an early-day motion titled with the name of one of my constituents and referring to his ongoing case, with which I am still dealing. It was tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan). Have you not made it clear that hon. Members should stay out of the cases of other hon. Members? The hon. Gentleman did not even do me the courtesy of telling me that he intended to table this early-day motion today. Swarthick Salins won his immigration case because of the hard work of my office and the constituency campaign of the people of Perth. It had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy). Can you restate your ruling that hon. Members should stay out of the cases belonging to other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: Another little thing is that the Chair should not be drawn into these matters and people should use their common sense. An early-day motion can be tabled by any hon. Member, even if it relates to somewhere else or someone else's constituent. However, the courtesies suggest that hon. Members should get in touch with the other hon. Member involved. If any hon. Member wants to take on any immigration cases, I probably have more asylum seekers in my constituency than anyone else in Scotland, so I am prepared to farm out some of that work.

Prevention of Excessive Charges

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mohammad Sarwar: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent excessive charges or fees from being levied on consumers; and for connected purposes.
	Over the last year, we have seen the effects that the irresponsibility and the excesses of the banking sector have had on families and business both here in the United Kingdom and around the world. Tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on bailing out our banks in order to deliver help to mortgage holders, businesses and savers. The Bill represents a further measure that must be taken to help those most in need. It is also an opportunity for our banks to show that they have learnt lessons and to act with fairness and responsibility.
	In recent years, members of the public have been forced to pay disproportionately high bank charges for modest contractual failures. For example, if a family is late in paying their mortgage they may incur an arrears fee of 60 each month. Over two years those charges can add up to almost 1,500.
	In 1998, the average bank charge for customers was 12. By 2006, it had jumped to more than 67with a 39 charge per declined item, a 28 monthly fee and 30 per cent. unauthorised overdraft interestwhich is a 558 per cent. increase in eight years. Bank charges are imposed not just for exceeding an agreed overdraft by a few pounds, but for the act of merely attempting to do so. Typically, they penalise people when they are at their most vulnerable in life and bear no relation to the sums involved.
	For example, a constituent's wages fell because of illness and she was unable to pay four direct debits one week. Her bank imposed default charges of 184, while her creditors imposed individual failed direct debit charges of 25, totalling 100. None of her bills has been paid, yet a staggering 284 of charges was imposedthe equivalent of four weeks' statutory sick pay. The imposition of these excessive charges is forcing hundreds of thousands of individuals into a spiralling cycle of debt and poverty.
	We protect individuals against unfair business practices by regulating consumer contracts. The regulations on unfair terms in consumer contracts provide protection for consumers against excessive charges. They allow the court to declare charges as unenforceable if a contractual term requires a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for failing to do something.
	There are two major weaknesses with the protection afforded by these regulations.
	They are reactive, in that they require individuals to opt in. That means taking a court action, and even then it could take months or years to obtain protection. In the meantime, people continue to suffer from the unfair chargesin addition to which, we know that many people, particularly frail or elderly constituents, will be reluctant to take court proceedings. Why should they have to do so?
	Secondly and more worryingly, powerful financial institutions appear able to evade consumer law protections. In 2006, the British Bankers Association claimed bank charges were fair because it really did cost 39 to send a computer-generated letter. That justification was dropped a year or so later when banking whistleblowers revealed that the true cost of these charges was between 1 and 2.
	More recently, most UK banks have altered their terms and conditions to avoid the common law prohibitions on penalty charges, as well as arguing that default charges were truly fees for requesting an informal overdraftan overdraft which would generally be automatically declined.
	In July 2007, the Office of Fair Trading launched its bank charges test case, with the full co-operation of the major high street banks. While this case has progressed, the banks have continued to impose excessive charges on customers. At the same time, most customers are being prevented from seeking a refund of unfair charges pending the outcome of the test case. Clearly, this position suits the banks well, and it is hardly surprising that even though they have lost the preliminary rounds of this case before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, they are now pursuing a further appeal to the House of Lords.
	While it is for the courts to decide whether the banks are right or wrong in terms of the existing law, I believe there is now an overwhelming case for providing UK consumers with better legal protection in this area. The Bill would overcome current statutory law inadequacies and would require any default charge or fee in a consumer contract to be proportionate and fair. This safeguard would provide protection for all consumers throughout the UK.
	Protection would apply to any contract currently regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or any contract where one of the parties was a consumer. A consumer is defined as any natural person who enters into a contract
	outside his or her trade, business or profession.
	Also included would be contracts for banking services regulated under the 1974 Act.
	Clause 1 of my Bill would make it unlawful for a business to impose a charge, fee, or series of charges and fees for a consumer's failed or unauthorised transaction unless those charges were valued at no more than 2.5 per cent. of the transaction. That would ensure that the value of charges was always proportionate to the value of the unauthorised or failed transaction.
	Returning to my example of a constituent with four bounced direct debits, if the total value of those debits was 400 the maximum overall charge would be reduced to 10 under my Bill. Whereas most companies would impose 25 for unpaid direct debit chargesresulting in an additional 100 of chargesthe maximum that could be levied under my Bill would again be 10. So, the charges under my Bill would be no more than 20, which can be set against the excessive 284 that would be imposed under the current system.
	I believe this proposal to be both fair and proportionate, having regard to the fact that most businesses have efficient computerised credit control systems whereby standard letters, e-mails or automated telephone calls will typically cost around 1 or less to produce and dispatch. The present system of charging is, I believe, indefensible in terms of the effects it is having on our society, particularly on its poorest and most vulnerable members, especially in the current economic climate. The system simply pushes people into unnecessary financial hardship and exposes countless households to eviction and repossession.
	I hope that hon. Members will support my Bill to protect vulnerable people from excessive and unfair charges. I am pleased to say that the Bill commands support from hon. Members from all the main political parties in this House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, Mr. Jim Devine, Mr. Jim McGovern, Willie Rennie, Mr. Tom Harris, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Mr. Ian Davidson, Lindsay Roy, Mark Fisher, Jim Sheridan, Mr. Charles Walker and Ms Dari Taylor present the Bill.
	Mr. Mohammad Sarwar accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 89).

Opposition Day
	  
	[10th Allotted Day]

Gurkha Settlement Rights

Christopher Huhne: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the Government's recent statement outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom; recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years; notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here; believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since; is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority; further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.
	I am particularly pleased to be leading in this debate since my county of Hampshire has a long and intimate association with the Gurkhas and the Gurkha museum is based in Winchester, next door to my constituency. The museum is a remarkable celebration of this remarkable brigade, and I recommend it to any Member.
	The Gurkha regiments have provided extraordinary service to this country since 1815, when the first Gurkhas entered service with the East India Company, which had been impressed by their fighting prowess as opponents in the Nepal war. The company took the eminently pragmatic view that if we found it hard to beat them, we had better hire them. During the first world war, the Gurkhas fought in France, the Suez canal, Mesopotamiathat is, Iraqand Gallipoli. During the second world war, the regiments took part in the campaigns of north Africa, Italy, Greece, Malaya and Burma.
	After the war and Indian independence, the Gurkha regiments split between the Indian army and the British Army. Our British regiments saw service in the 12-year Malayan emergency, the Falklands, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Gurkhas have a deserved reputation for effectiveness, bravery and loyalty. Given that remarkable history, it is perhaps surprising that until 2004 it was difficult if not impossible for foreign and Commonwealth members of the armed forces and Gurkhas to obtain settlement and British citizenship at the end of their service.
	The view before 2004 seemed to be that Gurkha rights were governed by the tripartite agreement of 1947 between Britain, India and Nepal, which stated that a
	Gurkha soldier must be recruited as a Nepali citizen, must serve as a Nepali citizen, and must be resettled as a Nepali citizen.
	We should pay tribute to the Gurkha welfare campaign and to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I do not believe is in her place today, for raising the issue in 2003 both in parliamentary questions and in two Adjournment debates. We should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) for pushing the issue at Prime Minister's questions.
	In 2004, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who was then the Home Secretary, set out changes to the immigration rules so that all those with at least four years' service in HM forces could apply for settlement in the UK after discharge. It is important that we recognise that crucial precedent. However, one key stipulation discriminated against Gurkhas compared with other foreign and Commonwealth troops, namely that they had to be discharged on or after 1 July 1997. There were some exceptions, but the fundamental rule was there.
	The rationale was simply that 1997 was the point at which the Gurkha regiment moved from its base in Hong Kong to the UK, following the handover of Hong Kong to China. That was never, frankly, the dividing line that some in Government seemed to think. One has only to look at the areas in which the Gurkhas served in the last 100 years to see that they were an integral part of the British armed forces. That decision led to some ridiculous and shameful anomalies. In a famous case, the Victoria Cross holder, Honorary Lieutenant Tul Bahadur Pun, was initially refused indefinite leave to remain for having inadequate ties to the United Kingdom. Indeed, veterans of Malaya, the Falklands, the first Gulf war and long service veterans who were seriously ill were all refused entry. The standard reason given was that they had failed to demonstrate strong ties to the United Kingdom.
	A landmark in the recent history of the issue was the judicial review of the Limbu case by the honourable Mr. Justice Blake on 30 September 2008. Mr. Justice Blake found that the policy regarding Gurkhas was unlawful and should urgently be revisited. He noted the apparent concerns of the Ministry of Defence concerning the attitude of the Government of Nepal, but pointed out that they were not based on evidence. Instead, Mr. Justice Blake cited the honouring of an historic debt, and quoted the military covenant as follows:
	Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrificesincluding the ultimate sacrificein the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they and their families will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
	Mr. Justice Blake added his own comment:
	Rewarding long and distinguished service by the grant of residence in the country for which the service was performed would, in my judgment, be a vindication and an enhancement of this covenant.
	I agree.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for the case that he is making. We want justice for the Gurkhas but does he agree that, rather than introducing easier immigration procedures, that just means giving priority to people who served this country well?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that clear and obvious point. I entirely agree with him, and I shall deal with some of the practical implications a little later in my speech.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but the motion says that
	people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country.
	Does he apply that to all foreign nationals who have served in our armed forces?

Christopher Huhne: I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for signing the early-day motion earlier this year that called for exactly what today's motion calls for, so I hope that he will join us in the Lobby later today. However, he will know that the current arrangements are that foreign and Commonwealth servicemen have the right, after four years of service, to apply for citizenship. That seems to be absolutely crucial.

Parmjit Dhanda: On a point of clarification: my grandfather, in his beard and turban, fought in the Indian army's Bengal Engineers but he also fought for King and country in Burma, so would he have fallen under the proposed rules? He passed away a few years ago, but many of his colleagues are still around. Would they be entitled to come and live in this country?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point that some traditions in the armed services go back many generations. However, not many regiments can boast the continuous tradition that the Gurkhas have shown for nearly 200 years. That makes the Gurkhas a rather special case, but I believe that the case for the hon. Gentleman's grandfather, were he still alive, would be worthy of consideration by the Ministry of Defence. However, I suspect that any policy along those lines would be impractical, if only because the people involved would be unlikely to avail themselves of it.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and assure him that I am not asking awkward questions merely for the sake of it, but because this is a complex area of policy and we need to clarify exactly what his motion proposes. Is he saying that he would widen the eligibility criteria so that they covered not just the Gurkha regiments but also, for example, the Sikh regiments that served with the British Army over the years?

Christopher Huhne: No, I am not saying that. Although I believe that we ought to give serious consideration to extending the criteria to people who have served in the British Army or armed services, today's motion is specifically limited to the Gurkhas because of the long history involved. Moreover, I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said about the history of the Gurkha regiments. Some of those who served in the Gurkhas and who went into the Indian army regiments after independence would not necessarily benefit from our proposalalthough, frankly, the age of the people involved means that the question is no longer of practical relevance. However, if Ministers are able to find any members of the Brigade of Gurkhas who went into the Indian army after independence and who are still alive, I would be delighted.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. There are people who fought for Britain in the second world war who transferred into the Indian army. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) asks a very good question: is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they should be included as well? He says that not many of them are still alive, but I met some of them when I was in Nepal three weeks ago.

Christopher Huhne: The Minister makes a nitpicking point about a handful of people, but the key issue that he needs to address concerns those Gurkhas who went into the British armed services after Indian independence. They pose a practical problem, and that is what we are concerned about. The Minister is talking about people aged over 80 whose numbers can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If he wants us to believe that they represent a serious impediment to the House passing the motion before us this afternoon, all I can say is that he is living in a fantasy land.

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend has referred to Mr. Justice Blake, who made exactly that point in his judgment. He said that any member of the Indian army was entitled to apply for British citizenship from 1947 until at least 1962, when visa restrictions were introduced. All the people about whom we are talking would be 80 years old or more, but they all had the opportunity to apply for British citizenshipan opportunity that is being totally denied to the Gurkhas because they are from Nepal. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as Mr. Justice Blake pointed out in his judgment, the situations of the two groups are therefore utterly different?

Christopher Huhne: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and for reminding us of the other terms of Mr. Justice Blake's judgment.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Huhne: No, as I want to make some progress.
	Last week's Government response was to announce new criteria for the settlement of discharged Gurkhas. They must now have at least three years' continuous lawful residence in the UK during or after service, and close family ties in the UK. They must also have at least a level 1 to 3 award for gallantry, leadership or bravery, 20 or more years of service, or a chronic or long-term medical condition. There were some other exceptions for Gurkhas who did not fulfil those criteria, but many hon. Members want to speak so I will not go into them.
	However, to make the point that I want to make, I shall deal with just one example from the list of criteria that I have set out. The 20-year rule seems to me to be a key discriminator, as so many Gurkhasand especially private soldiers and riflemenserve just 15 years. Only officers would have achieved 20 years of servicesomething that some Labour Member might find surprising, given what I am sure is their desire to treat officers and men equally. That criterion is five times as long as the period for which a foreign and Commonwealth soldier must serve to be granted settlement in the UK.
	What does this new package mean in practical terms? The Government say that 4,000 ex-Gurkhas and 6,000 spouses and children will be able to enterin other words, a total of 10,000 people. Lawyers acting for the campaign say that, to their knowledge, the total would be more like 100. What if we were to extend the pre-1997 rights on a equal footing with those after 1997? The Minister is on record as saying that 100,000 people could enter.
	Who should we believe? When I was an economic journalist, I was always very suspicious of well rounded numbers, and hon. Members may note that the Minister's estimate of our proposed policy is precisely 10 times as big as his estimate of his own policywhich, in turn, is a nice round 10,000. Let no one accuse the Home Office of failing to decimalise.
	However, we see the same cavalier attitude to figures when we look at costs. The Minister has spoken in various interviews about a potential extra cost of 1.5 billion, but during today's Prime Minister's questions the Prime Minister put that at 1.4 billion. The Government cannot even get their own story straight to within the nearest 100 million.

David Heath: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and he is making a very powerful case. Does not that illustrate that the Government are prepared to use any spurious statistical argument to avoid what I believe the British people consider to be our debt of honour to the Gurkhas? Should we not fulfil that debt of honour, and is not that what this debate is about?

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes the point that all reasonable people make when they consider the issue, including Mr. Justice Blake, who made the point in precisely those terms.

Andrew MacKinlay: I rejoice that in my constituency I have more than 400 Gurkha families. They enrich the borough educationally and in public life, and they also work, earn money and pay taxes. Gurkhas would be of enormous benefit to the United Kingdom, as they are to my constituency. The thing that really upsets me about the Government Front Benchers present is that there is a degree of inevitability about the matter, because as sure as night turns to day, the Gurkhas will win ultimately. I say to them: Why don't you embrace the proposal now? You wouldn't understand a just policy or a popular policy if it were painted on your eyelids.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman puts his point with a passion and directness that I can only admire. On 27 April, the Channel 4 News FactCheck rated the reliability of the figures of the Minister for Borders and Immigration as four. That was on a scale of one to five, in which the number five means that the claim
	has absolutely no basis in fact.
	In other words, the Minister's claim is a wild guessjust about as much of a wild guess as previous forecasts on immigration from his Department, which have proved to be wildly wrong. In fact, the Home Office estimate was based on a five-year-old figure for the number of Gurkha pensioners in Nepal of 36,000. We know from parliamentary answers from the Ministry of Defence that there are currently just 26,500 Gurkha pensioners, so even under the Home Office's own preferred methodology, the total, including dependants, would be 75,000 not 100,000, but that makes the assumption that every single one of those discharged servicemen would want to move.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is still showing his ignorance of the entire subject. The 26,000 are service pensioners who are in receipt of a Gurkha pension. In addition, there are another 10,000 welfare pensioners, who served mainly during the second world war, who did not qualify for the Gurkha pension, so the figure is 36,000.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out, but I have to say that the original figure given by the Ministry of Defence was 36,000, and it was on a comparable basis with the figure of 26,500 that it gave recently in a parliamentary answer. I would strongly recommend that the Minister gets the Ministry of Defence to answer parliamentary questions correctly, because clearly it has not been doing so.

Keith Vaz: rose

Christopher Huhne: Before I give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, from whom I very much want to hear on the issue, let me say that the key point is the attempt to take a narrow number of Gurkha pensioners and gross it up into the largest conceivable number that the Home Office can think of. Frankly, that number is nonsense on stilts. It is based on nothing at allno polling, no questionnaires, no surveys, and certainly no knowledge of the Gurkhas' beautiful and mountainous country, of the advanced years of some of the pensioners, who find it hard to contemplate walking to the next village, let alone taking a plane to London, and of the social status and prosperity of discharged servicemen in their own community. It is a fantasy to suppose that more than a fraction will want to settle in the UK.

Keith Vaz: May I caution the hon. Gentleman not to accept figures put out by the Ministry of Defence on the subject, simply because those of us who supported the right of the Iraqi interpreters to come to this country were consistently told by the Ministry of Defence that huge numbers of people would want to come here? In fact, very few have applied. That settlement process has gone very well indeed.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good and helpful point; I appreciate it, and indeed the work that he has done in the Home Affairs Committee.

Evan Harris: May I ask my hon. Friend to remind the House that there is a fundamental moral argument here? Under the Government's points-based scheme, if people from abroad have money, they can come here, and in due course apply for citizenship, but not all of those who have served this country abroad can do so. It seems that under the Government's policy, if a person lays down their cheque book for the country, they are in, but if a person is willing to lay down their life for the country, they are not.

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes a good point, as always.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Christopher Huhne: I shall make a bit of progress, if I may.
	An indication of what the true situation would be if we accepted the motion, and if the Government followed its recommendations, is provided by the number of pre-1997 Gurkhas who made their application for settlement before the Government's deadline of October 2006. We know from what Ministers have said that there are only 1,350 outstanding Gurkha applications on the desk of the Minister for Borders and Immigration. Those are people who applied in the knowledge that discretion could be applied. Is the Minister really saying that if the right to enter were to be automatic, in line with the post-1997 situation, there would be nearly 30 times more applicants? If so, I merely thank heaven that he is not a Treasury Minister in charge of the Budget forecasts.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it is important that we try to ascertain the numbers. As a Hampshire Member, he will be well aware not only that Gurkhas are serving in military units in my constituency of Aldershot, but that we have a very large Nepalese community, running into the thousands. Members of that community are very much valued and appreciated, but the situation is producing pressures locally. Major Dewan, the chairman of the British Gurkha Welfare Society, which is based in Farnborough in my constituency, has made it clear that of the 291 Gurkhas who are waiting to come to this country immediately, 80 per cent. will come to Farnborough. That means 1,000 people. My local authority tells me that it cannot cope. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any plans to help us. He said that he would set out some practical propositions to deal with what might happen in particular areas of the country, where the Gurkhas are hugely valued, but where the move might cause a problem for local services

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions have to be brief, and there are many Members waiting to contribute to the debate.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about immigration policy in its entirety. If he had come to some of the immigration debates that we have had, he would be aware that we Liberal Democrats have been putting forward proposals that would ensure that local authorities are better able to identify their needs, and better able to have the resources to meet them. I entirely accept that his is a legitimate concern, but I am afraid that it applies much more widely than merely to the narrow issue of the Gurkhas. For example, in areas of east London such as Newham, the NHS register is far out of line with the census results, which are used as a basis for the distribution of public finance, so I am entirely sympathetic to that point.
	There is a fundamental point that a number of my hon. Friends have already made, and have anticipated. We can play the numbers game, and if we do, the Government will lose the argument, because their figures, frankly, are fantasy. However, the numbers are not the point. The point is simple: Gurkhas have given an unconditional commitment to this country. They have put their lives on the line for us time and again. More than 45,000 Gurkhas have died in the conflicts of the two world wars, fighting for our freedoms and our way of life. They represent a tradition of service to Queen and country that is almost without equal.
	The Brigade of Gurkhas alone is the proud recipient of no fewer than 26 Victoria Crossesthe highest medal, of course, for valour in combat that our nation can award. Many units in the British Army have an outstanding record of valour and bravery under fire, but I have not been able to establish that there is any other unit that can match that record.

David Drew: There is one issue that does not seem to get a mention at all: the impact on Nepal. We are talking about important people who are pensioners in Nepal. They bring a quality of life because of their spending power. Has the hon. Gentleman considered an impact assessment on Nepal at all, particularly if we move in the direction of Gurkhas being likely to want to settle in this country when they leave the Army? More likely than not, that will result in them not sending remittances back home. I feel that we are duty bound to take account of that. If we agree to the measures in the motion, we have to help that country's Government.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have to consider the implications for the developing world of our policies, not just in this area but in others, too. I am sure that that was something of which Ministers were aware when they made the settlement for those who gave service after 1997. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that Nepal is not as dependent on the remittances from Gurkha soldiers as popular folklore in the UK sometimes suggests. The population of Nepaland this was reported to Mr. Justice Blake in a submissionis about 25 million, and its gross domestic product is substantial. Workers' remittances from Nepalese working abroad in India, the Gulf and elsewhere are very substantial indeed, so I am satisfied, to answer the hon. Gentleman directly, that if we rose to our obligations, there would be no corresponding bad effect on Nepal. His concerns can therefore be allayed.

Michael Howard: Was it not made clear to Mr. Justice Blake that the Nepalese Government have no objection to the right being given to former Gurkha soldiers to settle in the UK?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that question, and I am particularly grateful for his support for the campaign because, in its early days, as the constituency MP involved, he had some doubts about the right way to proceed. He is absolutely correct that, as far as we have been able to ascertain, and as far as Mr. Justice Blake could do so, the Nepalese Government do not have concerns on this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose

Christopher Huhne: Let me conclude, as I have given way enough.
	As Sir Ralph Turner MC, who fought with the Gurkhas in the first world war, wrote in the poem that has become the calling card of the men of the brigade:
	Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had a country more faithful friends than you.
	Are we really to repay that unconditional commitment with the penny-pinching approach of the accountant? Are we really the sort of people who know the price of everything, and the value of nothingwho reward loyalty with a rebuke? Are we to say that people who are prepared to fight and die for our country are not good enough to live in it? This debate is not just about the Gurkhas. It is the about the sort of people we are. The House must today find the generosity of spirit to repay, in the small way that we can, the enormous debt of gratitude that we owe to the Gurkhas. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from House to the end of the Question and add:
	recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom; notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom; further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK; acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997; further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997; supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK; further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months; further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.
	I thank the Liberal Democrats for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue, not least because it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the facts and the arguments that we need to inform ourselves about this debate. Everyone in the House accepts that Gurkhas have served this country with bravery and professionalism in many conflicts. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) for reminding us of that record. The Gurkhas have, indeed, just returned from a highly successful deployment in Afghanistan. I hope that there is no questioning of the Government's good intent towards the Gurkhas and their families. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about the fact that the Government have the highest regard for the contribution of the Brigade of Gurkhas, and the contribution that it has made to Her Majesty's armed forces over a significant period of time. Indeed, the Government can back up those words with their actions.

Bob Spink: The whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman about the contribution that the Gurkhas have made, and their heroic military service. However, the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made is important. We should look not at what the Gurkhas have done, but at what they can do in future for this country: the great contribution that they can make to our economy and society should not be underestimated.

Andrew MacKinlay: They are going to win anyway, so just get on with it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament, and he knows how to conduct himself in debate.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for protecting me from my hon. Friend from the mouth of the Thames.
	Not only can the Government say that they pay tribute to the Gurkhas, but we can prove by our record that we are doing so. Let me explain the background to this case. It has been said that the guidelines that we published on Friday have undermined support for the Gurkhas, but I do not accept that that is so. Gurkhas are recruited in Nepal, and remain Nepalese citizens throughout their service with the brigade, in line with the wishes of the Nepalese Government. Before 1997, the Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Hong Kong, and following the handover of Hong Kong to China, the regimental base was moved to the UK, which put the brigade on the same footing as Commonwealth soldiers.
	The service given by members of the brigade is chiefly recognised through the arrangements made to support them following their discharge. Gurkhas who served on or after 1 July 1997the date of the handover of Hong Kongare eligible to transfer to the armed forces pension scheme. Gurkhas who were discharged before that date, and who served for at least 15 years, receive a pension under the Gurkha pension scheme. In 2000, the value of those pensions was doubled. On top of that, the amount of the pension is regularly reviewed and increased in accordance with annual inflation in Nepalfor information, in 2009 it was 14.1 per cent. plus an additional 20 per cent. for those over 80. The pension received by ranks up to corporal is comparable to the salary of an engineer in Nepal, and it may be of interest to Members to know that the pension received by those of the rank of sergeant and above is equivalent to or greater than that of a Member of Parliament.

Daniel Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's position up to now on a number of issues. I do not think that the House would dispute the fact that the Government's record is better than that of the Conservatives when they were in office. However, the question is whether it is good enough, and the answer out thereboth around the world and through the eyes of those who are watching our debateis not yet.

Phil Woolas: That is an entirely fair and helpful point. At least the hon. Gentleman's party has been consistent on the GurkhasI have recognised thatin contrast with the Conservative party, which I shall come on to with great relish. I am setting out the position to tackle the accusation that, somehow or other, the Government have not treated the Gurkhas fairly or properly, although I accept that he has not made that accusation, and I am grateful to him.  [ Interruption. ] May I finish setting out the background, then we can deal with the second point, which is the subject of the debate?
	In addition, for those Gurkhas who did not serve long enough to qualify for a pension, the Ministry of Defence gives just over 1 million annually to the Gurkha Welfare Trusthence the discrepancy between the two figures raised by parliamentary questions, which the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) addressed. The charity provides financial, medical and community aid to alleviate hardship among former Gurkhas. I do not accept the accusation that Gurkhas discharged before 1997 have been abandoned by the Government, and it is offensive to senior members of the armed forces who are charged with the welfare of ex-soldiers of all regiments. It is against that background that decisions on settlement rights for ex-Gurkhas must be seen. It was never the case that Gurkhas joining up did so in the belief or expectation that they would get settlement rights. There was no expectation that they would be permitted to settle in the United Kingdom on discharge, and that was not part of the terms and conditions under which they enlisted.
	Notwithstanding that, the Labour Government chose in 2004 to introduce settlement rights for Gurkhas, in particular to bring their treatment into line with that of Commonwealth soldiers. Before that date, a discharged Gurkha had no route to apply to settle in the United Kingdom on the basis of service. In 2004, the then Prime Minister announced that those discharged after 1997, when the regimental base moved to the UK, would enjoy the same settlement rights as othersthat is, after four years of service and if they apply for settlement within two years of their discharge.
	However, the then Prime Minister went further than that. He recognised that there would be former Gurkhas who were discharged before 1997 when the base was still in Hong Kong who would have made outstanding or exceptional contributions and for whom settlement in the United Kingdom would be desirable. He therefore announced that the cases of Gurkhas discharged before 1997 would be considered on a discretionary basis. Guidance was issued to immigration case workers on how to consider applications from Gurkhas applying to settle on this basis. Since these rules were introduced, we have welcomed to our country about 6,000 Gurkhas plus their families.

Bob Russell: Can the Minister confirm without any shadow of doubt that the decision made in 2004 to allow Gurkhas who retired from 1997 onwards was retrospective, and that his ministerial colleague is therefore wrong to say that there cannot be retrospective legislation?

Phil Woolas: I understand that point. The decision was retrospective to 1 July 1997. Those who have been granted settlement include significant numbers3,500 from the previous period, before the 1997 cut-off, and 2,500 post-1997. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid in that regard.
	We come to the crux of the matter. The judicial review was launched against the background of that policy. It challenged both the 1997 so-called cut-off date and the guidance under which decisions were made on pre-1997 cases. The question has been asked, not least in the media today, where the guidelines come from. The answer is that they come from the instruction of the High Court to clarify the guidance pre-1997.
	On the 1997 cut-off, the judge, Justice Blake, said:
	The identification of July 1997 . . . was not an arbitrary or irrational consideration.
	He went on to say that
	it cannot have been irrational or unjustifiable to distinguish July 1997 as the date after which rights as opposed to discretion to settle in the United Kingdom accrued.
	So we have a judgment from the judge that the 1997 cut-off date is fair and lawful [Interruption. ] His exact words were not . . . irrational. The Government changed the situation in 2004, which has allowed 6,000 Gurkhas plus their familiessome 3,500 from before 1997to settle in this country.
	No Government from 1948 to 2004 allowed the settlement of Gurkhas in the UK. From 1948, when the brigade was established on its modern-day footing, until 1997, the number of Gurkhas who were given naturalisation in the United Kingdom was fivefive ex-Gurkhas. It is against that background that the motion from the official Opposition claims that the current Government have betrayed the Gurkhas and implies that we should get rid of the 1997 cut-offsomething that no Government did from the second world war until Tony Blair did it in 2004.

William Cash: To go on about the judgment of the Court is to miss the point completely. The judicial review is itself determined by parameters that need to be reviewed. This is a special case. I speak as one who has met the Gurkhas in Staffordshire and who has campaigned on their behalf over a number of years. If the Minister intends to run the argument that this is about judicial review and the judge's interpretation, he is missing the wood for the trees.

Phil Woolas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are some in the House who have campaigned consistently to abolish the 1997 cut-off date. I think the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) have made those points, and there are others, but I raise the issue because the Government stand accused of betrayal. That is an unfair and disingenuous accusation to make, particularly against the background, which I have just outlined to the House, of the Government's proud record on the treatment of the Gurkhas.

Damian Green: The Minister appears to be a little confused. He seems to say that our amendment differs in respect of the situation before 1997 from the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In fact, ours is a very small amendment to the original motion. On that issue we are at one with the Liberal Democrats. I do not understand what he can see in the amendment that justifies what he has just told the House.

Phil Woolas: What I see in the motion from the Liberal Democrats is consistency and naivet. What I see in the amendment from the hon. Gentleman is a bandwagon and inconsistency. If his party adhered to the policy of abolishing the 1997 cut-off, they had 18 years in which to do it and they did not. It ill behoves him to make the accusation that we have somehow betrayed the Gurkhas.

Several hon. Members: rose

Phil Woolas: I shall move on to the crux of what the hon. Member for Eastleigh said. He spoke about the judicial review. Let me clarify the figures. It has been claimed and reported that the Gurkhas and their supporters believe that the new guidelines will give settlement to only about 100 Gurkhas. That figure is an estimate, from the campaign, of the total number from the outstanding 1,500 appeals1,350 of which are from Nepal, and the remainder in countryof how many will be granted under the guidelines. It is not the estimate out of the total number of 36,000 Gurkhas plus their families to whom reference has been made, so it is disingenuous to suggest, as others have, that only 100 would qualify under the new guidelines.

Graham Stringer: The Government's record on the Gurkhas is better than that of any previous Government. My hon. Friend is right about that. He is a just and fair-minded Minister. However, I would feel happier if he reassured the House that none of the Gurkhas who are awaiting appeals will be deported, and said that he accepts the principle behind the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), which is that although the Government have done a lot, they can improve the situation further.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, in particular for his kind remarks, which have been much more polite than some in recent days. Let me answer him directly. Some of the outstanding applications are from ex-Gurkhas who are already in the United Kingdom and have been resident here for some time, whether lawfully or unlawfully. My officials will consider these applications on a case-by-case basis, as we are bound to do, to assess whether they fall to be granted settlement under the revised guidelines.
	Subsequent to that, the Border Agency is required under the immigration rules to consider all the relevant factors of an individual's circumstances to see whether the person should be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom. I can say to the House that I cannot foresee circumstances in which these honourable men who have served the UK so well would ever be removed from our country.

Mark Lancaster: I remind the House that I have an interest as a former officer in the Brigade of Gurkhas. My concern is the unintended consequences of this decision, which, if I am called to speak, I would like to explore. Will the Minister assure the House that none of the decisions today will jeopardise the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas? If in the future those of us on both sides of the House who are championing the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas face a decision locally about supporting the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas or our local regiments, will we be equally vociferous in supporting the brigade?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great knowledge, is concerned that the decisions do not have the unintended consequence of damaging the brigade. The point about the potential resource implication of this is important, and the Prime Minister referred to it earlier at Prime Minister's Question Time. Let me be clear because the numbers have been challenged, I think unfairly. I looked at the numbers after I had met representatives of the campaign. I cannot base the advice of the Government on the Channel 4 News fact indicator; I have to base it on the best information available to us, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has explained the derivation of the figures. But it is an important point. The Government have never said that 100,000 people would apply and would get settlement. We have to look, as we do under all immigration law, at the potential, and our best estimate is that it is 100,000. It may be more, it may be less.

George Howarth: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has outlined the Government's very good record so far in dealing with this issue, and he is right to say that the heart of the dispute is about numbershis Department's estimates about the potential numbers and the numbers that the campaign has said would qualify under the new guidelines. There has been a lot of progress today. The Prime Minister accepted that Ministers would review the 1,300 cases and that that would be concluded by 11 June. I understand that it is now further being said that on the basis of the work carried out on those 1,300 cases, there will be a consideration of the implications of that for the new guidelines. Both those statements are welcome. I do not expect an immediate answer from my hon. Friend, but if he would go a little further and say that that process of looking at the 1,300 cases and their implications will be concluded by the time the House rises for the summer recess, I would feel far more inclined to support the Government in the Division Lobby this afternoon.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment; he brings us to the crux of the debate. For the benefit of those who wish to contribute to the debate, I will depart from my written speech. We have two worries about abolishing the pre-'97 cut-off date. First, we are concerned that it would set precedents for other groups, and, as one would expect, I have taken legal advice on that. We fear that the precedent would be set for people from Commonwealth countries who had served in the armed forces, and that that retrospective decision from pre-'97 would apply to other groups. We have to be clear that if a blanket decision was made on Gurkhas for pre-'97 there would be no unintended consequence for other groups who may have the right to challenge on the basis of common law and public law. With that there is the consequential impact on budgets, and the Prime Minister referred to the 1.4 billion. I do not recall using the 1.5 billion figure, but if I did I withdraw that. Our estimate is 1.4 billion, and I remind the House that that would come from the defence budget.
	Secondly, if right hon. and hon. Members are honest with themselvesI hope that we all arethe truth is that none of them knows how many would apply. But as the former Chief of the Defence Staff said in  The Independent on Sunday, the Government have to live in the real world, not in the world of emotion. Therefore the staged approach that we have taken, as described by the Prime Ministerthis is the crux of my right hon. Friend's proposal

George Howarth: rose

Phil Woolas: Just let me finish, then I will take an intervention. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will agree with me.
	There are 1,500 cases outstanding, and we will get through those by 11 June. We have already started on that. I am more than confident that that will be significantly more than the 100 that has been estimated. We will then review the guidelines as time goes on. If our figures are wrong, we of course will change the guidelines, as we have always intended to do and as we stated in the written ministerial statement on Friday. We have made that point. My right hon. Friend is trying to push us on what we have announced as a review within 12 monthswe were always clear on thatand it will become pretty clear how the guidelines are being interpreted by the time scale that he gives. I cannot give him a cast-iron guarantee, because we do not know how many applications outside of the 1,500 will come in, but that is certainly my intention.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that and we have made still further progress. I accept that he cannot give a cast-iron guarantee, but if he were to tell me and those who support the amendment that stands in my name and those of others that he would use his best endeavours to conclude that process by the start of the summer recess, I would feel much more reassured.

Phil Woolas: I can do that, with the caveat that I do not know how many applications will be made in that period.

Christopher Huhne: rose

Phil Woolas: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will make the final points in my argument so that we can move on.

Christopher Huhne: I am particularly interested in being a spectator at what appears to be an internal group meeting of the parliamentary Labour party between those on the Front and Back Benches about what these concessions may be. I welcome the Minister's commitment that there will not be deportations in the case of the appeals. But we come back to the key point, which I ask Labour Back Benchers to consider carefully when they decide how to vote, of how the Government are approaching the issue. Is it more credible to believe that 1,350 people who have actually applied from before 1997 is the rough order of magnitude of the numbers that we are talking aboutthere may be some moreor the Government estimate, which on the Minister's own admission just now is the maximum potential figure? Given that the maximum potential figure is an absurd basis for policy

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. I understand the importance of this debate, but many Back Benchers also wish to make a contribution.

Phil Woolas: Once again, the hon. Gentleman caricatures what I said. I have always been clear that the 100 per cent. is a maximum and an estimate. I made that perfectly clear in interviews in the media on Friday. Let me again clarify the point about the 1,500. Those are the outstanding appeals against applications that we have.
	Hon. Members are also concerned about the 20-year limit and the accusation that it is somehow or other discriminatory against the lower ranks.

Nia Griffith: I welcome the Government's commitment in the amendment to review the impact of new guidance within 12 months, but will my hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that that will include looking at that 20-year limit, as many have not been able to serve more than 15 years?

Phil Woolas: Yes. Let me explain where the 20 years comes from. I think that when people hear the argument, if they are fair-minded they will accept it. I am sorry to go back to the judge, but this is the derivation of the argument. He said that the old guidelines were unclearwe therefore had to make them cleareron the basis of quality and quantity of service. The criteria that we have proposed provide for a range of circumstances that cover both points. It is the case that the majority of people who have 20 years' service are below commissioned officer rank. Although it is true that soldiers in the private ranks join for 15 years and people who intend to be officers join for 20 years, it is also true and not contradictory that many people serve more than 15 years, but a majority of those who serve 20 years are below the rank of commissioned officer. In any event, that is only one criterion.
	The other criteria, which include, as we know, a generous expansion of the guidance on people who have disabilities and, importantly, people who have drawn a pension in the past because of a disability or an injury, reflect the quantity and quality of service. I put those criteria before the House in the belief and expectation that more Gurkhas and their families will be granted settlement rights in our country, and with the review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) asked for and has just pressed me on.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, it was part of the written ministerial statement, but I recognise the feeling of the House and we will review the situation.
	However, we as a Government must bear in mind the potential implication of that precedent for other groups of people and for the resources of our country, not to mention the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made about the future of Nepal itself, which seems not to have featured much in the debate.

David Drew: I should be interested to know what the Governments of Nepal and India have said about the whole debate, and, more particularly, whether the UK Government have conducted an assessment of the impact on Nepal's GDP if the greatest numberI know it is only an estimateof people who could enter this country do so.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's point is extremely important, and I, as a Labour party member, think that we should give a lot of strength to it. The Government, through aid and the Department for International Development's budget, give 56 million to Nepal. We giveif give is the right wordor pay 54 million in pensions for Gurkhas, so those are the sums that are important to Nepal.
	I sense that the House has heard enough from me.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: I am being pressed to take interventions, but there are a number of speakers, the Liberal Democrats have another debate this afternoon and we have only until 4 o'clock.
	I shall finish on this point, which involves a quotation from the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who, at the time of the 2004 settlementdeal, agreement, arrangementthat we made, was a Conservative Defence spokesman. He said:
	We warmly welcome the government's decision. This should receive overwhelming support from the British people who have enjoyed the Gurkhas' valuable service over nearly 200 years.
	I should like to ask, what changed between 2004 and now, other than an opportunity to jump on a bandwagon, misrepresent the good intentions of the Government, question our motive and not even wait for the facts to see how many people secure settlement from the new guidelines?

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. In view of the limited time available, I propose to reduce that further to six minutes.

Damian Green: I shall seek to be briefer than the previous two speakers, in recognition of how many Back Benchers are willing to speak.
	It is a rare but genuine pleasure to support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). We tabled an amendment, which the Minister misunderstands; it would improve the motion in small but important ways that I shall come to later. This is a day for the whole House to speak up for the Gurkhas and for the overwhelming majority of the people of this country who want to support them. We will vote for the motion, because our analysis of the Government's position is very simple: the Government are wrong.
	The Minister spent a lot of time talking about history. Let me give him a bit more history, because he does not seem to understand it. In 1997 the terms of the Gurkhas' engagement changed radically; their headquarters were moved to this country and they started doing tours of duties in this country; and so some of their children started to be educated in this country. Therefore, to say that a Government whose term had ended before that change happened should somehow have changed the rules to recognise that is simply absurdbut that was the assertion that the Minister made in his speech.
	The Minister also asked what has changed since thevery wisewords of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in 2004. What has changed is the court decision. The Government were taken to court and lost the case, so for the Minister to say that nothing has changed since then is also absurd.
	I assure hon. Members that a Conservative Government would scrap this Labour Government's plans for the Gurkhas, although I hope that the House passes the motion so that we can proceed more rapidly. I have rarely seen such an outpouring of public outrage as the one that has engulfed the Minister since he made his ill-fated decision last week.

David Cairns: We all honour the past service of the Gurkhas, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the cause that has been put forwardwith one important caveat about which I hope the hon. Gentleman can lay my fears to rest: the implications for future recruitment from Nepal. He will know that the current Maoist Government of Nepal were elected on a manifesto commitment to stop Gurkha recruitment to the UK Army. They performed a U-turn at a meeting with UK parliamentarians in Kathmandu, at which I was present, but it is a very shaky U-turn. If a large number of people leave Nepal, and there is the impact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned, it could flip the Nepalese Government back into stopping the recruitment of Gurkhas to the British Army. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me clearly what discussions he has had with the Government of Nepal, or their representatives, about whether changes [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members are laughing; they do not think that this situation has any impact on the 12th poorest country in the world. What discussions

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Damian Green: That is a faintly ridiculous point. Clearly, the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas is extremely important, but the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his point suggests that he is not interested in having the constructive debate that we need.
	The current situation is part of a long-running set of mistakes by the Government on the issue. They have been wrong on it ever since the High Court made its ruling last year. We have heard a lot about Mr. Justice Blake, but his judgment came down to this central point, when he said that the Gurkhas' service is worthy of
	an unquestionable moral debt of honour
	from the British people. The Opposition have been absolutely clear about that. The following day, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
	Yesterday the courts ruled that Gurkhas who want to come and live in Britain should be able to. They risked their lives for us and now we must not turn our backs on them. I say to the government... Do not appeal this ruling. Let's give those brave Gurkha soldiers who defended us the right to come and live in our country.
	Many Gurkhas outside this House today, and millions more of their supporters throughout the country, will be not only appalled by the Government's position but puzzled about how they arrived at it, so it is worth investigating why the Government find themselves in this position. The underlying reason they have to behave in such an unfair and ungenerous way to the Gurkhas is that the Government's overall immigration policy has been out of control for many years. Why are they trying to stop Gurkhas coming here? It boils down to the fact that they have failed to stop so many much less deserving people from coming here and, what is worse, staying here.
	A long list of failures on immigration policy has driven the Minister to his present uncomfortable position. The Government failed to deport the killer of Stephen Lawrence; they failed to remove the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada; only one third of released foreign prisoners have been deported; and only 14 employers of illegal immigrants have been prosecuted since 2008.
	Then there is the wider point about immigration numbers. The Government used to say that there was no obvious upper limit on immigration, and in their headlong retreat from that disastrous policy, they are now in the ridiculous and immoral position of trying to keep out some of the best and most loyal servants of this country.

Keith Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: In a second.
	The net result of this succession of failures is that the Minister has to find new ways of looking tough; that is what he was appointed to do, and that is what he seeks to do. Today's victims of that are the Gurkhas. The Government are making the Gurkhas the scapegoat for their own incompetence on immigration policy. Let me set out for the Minister how he could immediately climb out of the hole that he finds himself in. I will tell the House what we would do if we were in power, and offer the Minister a way to bring in our proposals quickly so that the Gurkhas do not have to wait.

Keith Vaz: This is just a point of clarification; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to clear it up now. He talked about the deportation of the killer of Stephen Lawrence; I am sure that he would like to reflect on that.

Damian Green: It was not Stephen Lawrence's killerthe right hon. Gentleman is, as so often, right.

Chris Mullin: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that it sticks in the gullet slightly to find that a representative of the party that at each general election within my memory has run disreputable campaigns about the admission of foreigners and migration generallyI note that the  Daily Mail and the  Daily Express, which are also virulently anti-migrant, are leading this campaignis now championing what appears to be an open-door policy for this category of migrants and, who knows, some others too?

Damian Green: I have great admiration and liking for the hon. Gentleman, but that intervention was nonsensical and disgraceful in every individual part. I remind him that he is sitting on the Government Benches representing a party whose leader talked about British jobs for British people. If he wants to talk about unpleasant rhetoric, I suggest that he look in his own house first.
	A Conservative Government would make a presumption that Gurkhas who left the service before 1997 would be allowed to settle in this country. That is the big divide in this debate. I think that everyone on the Conservative Benches is on one side of the debate, and most, although I hope not all, on the Government side of the Chamber are on the other side of it. Those of us who are on our side of the debate are also on the side of the Gurkhas. We are on their side because ours is the only fair solution to the problem that the Government face. How would we do it? We would fit their applications into the general framework of our proposed immigration policy. As the Minister knows, we would build on the points-based system with our proposal for a limit on the number of work permits issued every year, so that we have a properly controlled immigration system. We would create a new category within the points-based system for former service personnel who are not British citizens, and allow them the right to settle.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is no longer in his place, objected to

Lyn Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: Can I finish my sentence first?  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Lady can contain herself, I was referring to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who said that his objection to the points-based system was that it was entirely economically driven and had no room for any other drivers. That is an interesting point, although I do not completely agree with it.
	We would create a new tier for which people would qualify simply by having served the British armed forces. I think we all agree that we owe those people a debt, and the vast majority of those who would benefit from that category would be pre-1997 Gurkhas.

Lyn Brown: rose

Damian Green: I think that the hon. Lady wishes to speak.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious. Under the new Conservative policy, will anybody who has served this country in the armed forces abroad have an automatic right of entry to this country?

Damian Green: As I said, as the hon. Lady would have heard had she been listening, there would be a presumption in favour [ Interruption. ] Let me deal with this now. One of our small differences with the Liberal Democrats is that, although we support the motion, there is a problem that it appears to allow that right to anyone, even if, for example, they have committed serious crimes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastleigh would not wish people like that to be given the right to come to this country. Our amendment would ensure that we retained controls over individuals whom we might not wish to come here. I cannot believe that that would be a controversial point even among Government Members.
	One of the key questions that remains is about the numbers who are eligible to apply. The Minister tried to convince us that the figures from the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence were unquestionable. I am afraid that those of us who spend large parts of our lives dealing with Home Office figures, and those of my colleagues who deal with MOD figures, will not share his confidence that absolutely everything that comes out of those Departments is necessarily of the highest calibre. At various stages, the MOD has estimated that the total numbers eligible will be 22,000; it has mentioned other figures, but I will stick with the lower one because it helps the Minister's case. The British Gurkha Welfare Society estimates that the total would be 30,000. On top of that, of course, there are the dependants, because we all agree that we need to be fair to them as well. In their statement last week, the Government estimated that there are about 1.5 dependants per Gurkha4,000 soldiers with 6,000 dependantswhereas the British Gurkha Welfare Society estimates that there are three dependants per Gurkha.
	This is a significant area where any Government would need to do some proper research to find the truth. Even on those two estimatesthere are others; this morning, I heard the BBC reporting a figure of 40,000 potential qualifying ex-Gurkhasthe numbers eligible to come here could vary between 55,000 and 120,000; those are the absolute maximums. Before we settle on a final policy, the Government need to sort out that confusion and make a sensible assessment of how many people will actually apply to come here. Over the past couple of years, about 1,300 have made applications. If that is the realistic level of demand, then our proposals would solve the problem on day one; certainly, the number of visas on offer would be significantly higher than that. We can be clear that a Conservative Government would grant visas under the new tier of the points-based system to give the Gurkhas what they deserve: the right to settle in this country with their immediate dependants. The lower the number who apply, the faster we can right this wrong, which I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House want to do.
	I know from my own talks with Gurkha campaigners that they want this matter solved quicklyin fact, nowso I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill is currently passing through Parliament. It has completed all its stages in the other place and will come to this House in the next few weeks. The long title of the Bill includes the words
	To make further provision about immigration and asylum.
	It would therefore be perfectly in order for the Minister to introduce our proposalor, indeed, any other proposal that he wants to introducein that Bill so that it could be on the statute book within the next few months. If his proposal is sensibleif he wishes to adopt ours, or anything similarmy party will support him, and I guess that the Liberal Democrats would also want this problem to be solved as quickly as possible. This debate is about playing fair with the people we should let into this country while at the same time, in wider immigration policy, doing much better in stopping the people who should not be allowed in to this country.
	Over the course of the past few days, the Minister has managed to attract opposition from all parts of the spectrum. In looking at the various options put forward by Members in all parts of the House, I am particularly struck by one that we have already touched on, which points out that only officers benefit from the Government's proposals. It must strike the House as the most exquisite irony that in the week that the Government publish their Equality Bill they produce another policy which favours the officer class and tramples all over the other ranks. I cannot imagine that many Labour Members came into politics to support such divisive nonsense.
	There are two genuine concerns that need to be addressed, the first of which was raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). If the vast majority of former Gurkhas were to leave Nepal over a very short period, that would do huge damage to the Nepali economy and the structure of governance in Nepal. I do not believe that that huge exodus would happen, and I take the points that the hon. Member for Eastleigh made about that, but we need to bear the possibility in mind.
	The second concern, which we have not discussed much, is that those who arrive here need to be properly assimilated into British society as easily and comfortably as possible. I can draw on my experience in saying that, because my constituency has a fast-growing Nepali community. They are model citizens, from the dedication of the children at school to the big efforts made by adults to play a key role in wider civic life, while demonstrating their justifiable pride in their history and culture. That is a lesson in how cohesion and integration can work in this country, and above all, what has happened in my constituency is a tribute to the wholly admirable people that the Gurkhas are.
	Before I close, I should mention that the changes proposed in the amendment that we tabled were designed not to change the sense of the motion in any way but to tidy it up. I have made the point that expressing a presumption of the right to come rather than an absolute right would alleviate one of the potential problems. That shows that it is not very difficult to change the motion in minor ways that give a basis for practical legislation that the Government could introduce as soon as they wanted, and that a Conservative Government would introduce as soon as they were able.
	I urge the Minister once again to stop digging the hole in which he finds himself. He has created a rare degree of unity inside and outside the House, and it is a united front against his policy. He must now listen to the voices of those who support the Gurkhas, respect the strength of feeling throughout the country and reverse this unfair, ungenerous and divisive policy. The Gurkhas should not be made the scapegoat for the failure of the Government's immigration policy. I support the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that there is now a six-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches?

George Howarth: I come to this issue as somebody who was a child in the period following the second world war. Pretty well everybody I knewmy father, my mother, uncles, neighboursserved in the armed forces and fought in the war in some capacity. Not many people spoke much about their wartime experienceit was a kind of convention that people did not go on in great detail about what had happened to them. However, one of my clear recollections is the extent to which those who served with Gurkhas were full of praise for their fierceness in battle, their loyalty to the UK and their contribution in the second world war. That is the background to my own sentiments towards the Gurkhas.
	More recently, I have had some direct experience of Gurkhas. Since the conflict in Iraq began, I have travelled there on three occasions either as Chairman of a Committee, as a guest of the Government or, on one occasion, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). On all those occasions, I encountered Gurkhas who were serving out there, sometimes working in a private capacity for private security companies and in some cases with the armed forces. I have nothing but respect for the Gurkhas.
	It was for that reason that I joined forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) yesterday and tabled an amendment that has attracted the signatures of 70 right hon. and hon. Members, the majority of whom, although not all, are Labour Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I have been around the House long enough to know that an amendment tabled by a Back-Bench member of the governing party is unlikely to be selected when the Government and the official Opposition have tabled amendments. However, I thought that it was important to send the Government a message that I, and those who signed the amendment, did not believe that they had given the Gurkhas the honour and recognition that they deserved.
	In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister, I indicated that progress had been made in the past 24 hours. At Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the 1,350 cases that are currently in the Home Office will be dealt with by 11 June. He went on to saymy hon. Friend the Minister confirmed this from the Dispatch Boxthat the lessons that could be learned from those cases would be examined and a statement made about the outcome of that examination. Shall I use the word review? In particular, it was said that there would then be a review of the impact that those findings would have on all cases if the new guidelines were applied. That is basically the point that we had reached at the time of my intervention.
	Since then, the Home Secretary has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, a co-signatory of my amendment, and it might help the House if I read out some of the letter. She wrote:
	We have committed to reviewing around 1,350 individual cases where there is an outstanding application by 11 June. We will inform the House immediately thereafter of the impact of the guidance on those cases, and the numbers of cases which fell to be granted, the number refused, and the number where we have requested and are still awaiting further information from the applicant. In the light of lessons learned from this we will review carefully what further policy changes may be required. I am happy to confirm that we will begin this work before the summer recess.
	Again confirming a point that my hon. Friend the Minister made earlier, she continued:
	Subsequent to that, UKBA is required under the immigration rules to consider all the relevant factors of an individual's circumstances to see whether the person should be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom. I cannot foresee circumstances in which these honourable men, who have served the UK so well, would ever be removed from the UK.
	Prior to receiving that letter and the developments of the past 24 hours, it had been my intention to abstain on both the Government amendment and the Liberal Democrat motion. In the light of those assurances, I now feel that my party's Government have proved to be an honourable Government, and they are a better Government than they were 24 hours ago for that. I will support them.

Michael Howard: The 2nd Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles is based at Shorncliffe, in my constituency. In a bitter irony, soldiers from that battalion returned to Shorncliffe on Sunday 19 April, 10 days agojust five days before the Government made their announcementfrom a tour of duty in Afghanistan. It was a tour of duty in which, yet again, they demonstrated their heroism and valour, and during which they lost two of their comrades. On Tuesday 4 November, Rifleman Yubraj Rai received a gunshot wound from enemy fire. He received medical treatment at the scene but he died a short time later from his wounds. Only a few days later, on Saturday 15 November, Colour Sergeant Krishnabahadur Dura was taking part in a road move in the Musa Qala district of Helmand, when the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle in which he was travelling was struck by an explosive device.
	Those Gurkha soldiers made the supreme sacrifice for our country. When they died, the Prime Minister told the House that we should never forget the sacrifice that they had made, just as he did some three hours ago in respect of the death of the Welsh Guardsman who lost his life yesterday. However, those words must be accompanied by deeds.
	When the Gurkhas returned to Shorncliffe 10 days ago, they were warmly welcomed home by the rest of my constituents. The welcome home that they got from the Government was the decision that we are debating this afternoon. The Gurkhas are a most cherished part of the community that I represent in this place. To say that they are held in high regard would be a gross understatement.
	Two weeks ago, I attended and spoke at the launch of an appeal in Folkestone for the erection of a statue dedicated to the Gurkhas. Hundreds of people turned up: Gurkhas themselves, including their two holders of the Victoria Cross, our highest award for valourTul Bahadur Pun and Lachhiman Gurungcivic dignitaries of the area and many local people, who wanted to show the affection and esteem in which the Gurkhas are held locally. We are proud to have them as members of our local community. We are not proud of the Government's decision, which we are debating this afternoon.

Kevan Jones: What would you do?

Michael Howard: I would do exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) outlined.  [Interruption. ] Another hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position says that we did not do it. Of course we did not because the question did not arise before 1997, for all the reasons that were given earlier. Before 1997, the Gurkhas' terms and conditions were governed by the tripartite agreement. I do not remember ever being asked to address the issue before 1997it simply did not arise.

Kevan Jones: rose

Michael Howard: I will give way to the Under-Secretary because I have a particular word to say shortly about one of his contributions to our debate.

Kevan Jones: I accept the support that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives Gurkhas, but, when he was Home Secretary, he had on his watch the naval personnel in Hong Kong, who wanted citizens' rights. I carefully wrote down the new policy of the Conservative Opposition and potential Government. It would allow anyone who has served in the British armed forces in the past to come here. Does that include the people that the previous Conservative Government did not honour when they withdrew from Hong Kong?

Michael Howard: The Under-Secretary's comments have nothing to do with the Gurkhas. I am talking about the position on the Gurkhas before 1997, which was the point made from a sedentary position.
	Others have spoken of the feats of the Gurkhas throughout the centuries and I do not need to repeat them. They have also spoken about the criteria that the Government set out in the decision that we are debating. I therefore do not need to go into any great detail about them, but I want to say a word about one, perhaps the most objectionablethe 20 years' service requirement and the extent to which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford pointed out, it favours the officer class.
	The Under-Secretary now shakes his head. His rebuttal of the point was that more other ranks than officers had served for more than 20 years before 1997.  [Interruption. ] He tells me that the Minister for Borders and Immigration said that, and I am more than happy to accept the correction. It was an entirely bogus point and disingenuous statistic, which characterises the Government's approach. Most other ranks did not serve for 20 years before 1997; most other ranks were not allowed to serve for more than 15 years before 1997.
	I ask hon. Members to consider what might have been in the minds of the Gurkha riflemen returning to my constituency 10 days ago, knowing that they are not allowed to serve more than 15 years and that the Government regard that as inadequate for consideration under their eligibility criteria in the decision.

Phil Woolas: rose

Michael Howard: I have only a few seconds left and I want to bring my remarks to a close.
	At the end of his judgment in the case of Limbu and others, which was heard and decided last September, Mr. Justice Blake recited the military covenant. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) read it out, so I do not need to do so again. It is familiar to many hon. Members. However, the last sentence of his judgment has also been mentioned and is worth repeating. Mr. Justice Blake said:
	Rewarding long and distinguished service by the grant of residence in the country for which the service was performed would, in my judgment, be a vindication and an enhancement of this covenant.
	I agree with those words and commend them to the House.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Perhaps I have been a Member of Parliament for too long22 yearswhen I can take part in a debate in which a Labour Government are trying to restrict numbers coming into the United Kingdom, and Conservative spokespersons and former Conservative Home Secretaries are inviting us to increase those numbers.
	I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on using some of their precious Opposition time on holding not only one but two important debateson the Gurkhas and on Sri Lanka. Obviously, I will not participate in the next debate because I am speaking in this one. Enabling the House to discuss two such important matters, which are current and occupy the minds of the British people, is very worthy, and I thank the Liberal Democrats for that.
	The Government have done an enormous amount for the Gurkhas and the Minister for Borders and Immigration should not feel upset about criticism. I know that he does nothe is the immigration Minister, so he should expect such criticism. I stress that we are grateful and I am proud to support a Government who have done so much for the Gurkhas. I strongly believe, however, that we should go that one step further.
	The Minister has accepted representations from the Gurkhas. At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who has led the campaign on the parliamentary issues, he met several Gurkhas at the end of last year. He has listened carefully to what they said, but it is wrong to change an important aspect of policy through an exchange of letters between the Home Secretary and Back Benchers, when the Government have had considerable time to deal with the matter and to fashion a fair and just policy.
	Of course I accept what the Home Secretary said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), but hon. Members will excuse my taking the letter with a pinch of salt. The Home Secretary and the immigration Minister talk about speed in the immigration and nationality directorate, when it has a backlog of more than 220,000 cases

Phil Woolas: More.

Keith Vaz: The Minister says that there are more. Given that, he will excuse me for not taking at face value a statement that there is a hope that the cases will be resolved by June.
	There is a problem with processing such matters and I will need more than a letter read out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, wonderful though he is, to be convinced that the Government will try to review the guidelines by June. When the Minister spoke at the Dispatch Box, he did not say that. He said that it was a hope, not an expectation.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend is ungenerously trying to make out that I have been naive. I was relying not on the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration at the Dispatch Box, important though they were, but on the words of the Home Secretary, which she put in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) this afternoon.

Keith Vaz: I did mention the letter from the Home Secretary, but my right hon. Friend was talking to our right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and did not hear me. However, whether the letter comes from the Home Secretary or the Minister for Borders and Immigration and whether it is written in blood, wax or whatever, I have such an enormous immigration case load that I have difficultly accepting that the Home Office and the immigration and nationality directorate can process 1,500 cases by June. I do not think they can do it.
	Let me turn to the crux of what I want to say, which is about the decision of the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year. We wrote a letter to the Minister for Borders and Immigration on 4 November last yearthis also goes to the question of speedthat reflected a unanimous decision by the Committee after taking evidence from him and from campaigners from the Gurkha community. The letter said four things.
	First, the Committee recognised the historic debt of gratitude that is owed to the Gurkhas. We called them brave, loyal and distinguished. Secondly, we agreed that the current Government policy of distinguishing those Gurkhas who retired before 1 July from those who retired afterwards has, in effect, created two classes of Gurkhas. We considered that there was no reason for that distinction. Thirdly, we concluded that the treatment of the Gurkhas was unfair, given the discrepancy between that and the settlement rights afforded to other Commonwealth citizens. Fourthly, we asked the Minister to bring forward regulations to replace the regulations that have already been declared unlawful and to extend the rights of settlement to all the Gurkhas who had applied for settlement. That was absolutely in keeping with the motion that the Liberal Democrats have tabled. The Committee came to a unanimous decisionI see one Committee member, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), in his place. I will now need the speech of a lifetime from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), to convince me that the Government's position has changed since the motion that they have tabled. We need to move much further.
	My final point relates to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The view that there has to be an impact assessment for other countriesin this case Nepalwhen Parliament takes a decision on immigration policy is ludicrous. I came here as a first-generation immigrant, and for a country that at one stage ruled a third of the world suddenly to start talking about having impact assessments is bizarre. My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration will know the Bangladeshi community in Oldham. He will know, as will anyone who knows the south Asian community, that just because those people are settled in Oldham, that does not mean that they do not have connections with Bangladesh or that they do not send remittances back to their country of origin. It is a spurious argument that is being developed. I have received no representations from the Government of Nepal, but to be perfectly frank, would we take into consideration representations made by India about the points-based system? I do not think so, because India is against the points-based system, yet we have already told India that we are going to implement it anyway.
	For those reasons I am still minded to support the Liberal Democrat motion, despite the speech from the Opposition Front Bench, which almost put me off. However, the Lobbies belong to everybody and, in keeping with the unanimous decision of the Home Affairs Committee, I think that that is the honourable thing for me as the Chairman to do, given that I signed the letter to the Home Secretary.

Menzies Campbell: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), particularly as he has just announced that he is going to keep the faith.
	The weakness of the Government's case is surely illustrated by the fact that in the course of this debate the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to send a letter to a Labour Back Bencher, apparently without having the courtesy or the foresight to send it to the Minister who was addressing the House. It is something of an insult to the House that our proceedings should be treated in that way. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been here for 22 years, and in that time I do not remember letters being passed around the Back Benchers of any Government in that way.
	The Minister did his best to put a brave face on the decision that he has to justify, but the truth is that it is a shabby decision. That is why he sounded both unconvinced and unconvincing. I approach the matter as an issue of principle. We have had a lot of exchanges about calculations and potential numbers, but at the bottom of this debate there lies a question of principle. It seems to me that we have not only a moral obligation to recognise those who risk their lives and who, as we heard in an eloquent speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), often make the ultimate sacrifice, but a moral obligation to fulfil. All the speeches that we have heard this afternoon have mentioned that moral obligation. When we come to vote in a little while, there will be a chance to fulfil that obligation in a way that the recipients undoubtedly deserve.
	Earlier today the Prime Minister spoke about a stage-by-stage process, as if the Government had embarked upon a carefully planned journey, in which the rights of Gurkhas were to be enhanced over a period of time by a series of carefully considered measures. However, that is simply not true. Changes have been made during the lifetime of this Government because of the pressure in the House and the pressure outside it. We are only here today because Mr. Justice Blake partially upheld the proceedings for judicial review in the High Court. If he had not done so, does anyone think that the Government would have brought forward proposals of any kind whatever? They were compelled to do so because of that judicial decision.
	Like others, I have a quarrel with the so-called qualifications. As others have dealt with them, including the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I do not need to deal with them further, except to say this. Although there may be persons other than officers who serve for 20 years, the curious symmetry between the 20-year period that was chosen and the length of service of officers has undoubtedly figured in the minds of those members of the public who have made it clear in their droves that they support the campaign to extend rights of residence to deserving Gurkha soldiers.
	Another point that I do not think anyone has made, but which is worth drawing to the House's attention, is this. There appears to be a qualification based upon receipt of a decoration. That is a qualification based not on being brave, but on being recognised as having been brave. Anyone who has been engaged in conflict will say that some of the bravest and most selfless acts of heroism are committed by people who never receive any recognition of any kind whatever. The proposed qualification seems to me to be wholly artificial. The bravery lies in volunteering and in fulfilling a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I am going to finish in a moment.
	My objection is to the fact that there is discrimination between Gurkhas and citizens from Commonwealth countries; without all of them, many of the regiments in our Army would be sadly below strength.
	All the indications are that those Gurkhas who have settled here have been good citizens, contributed to their communities, paid their taxes and done everything that might be expected of them. That is why I regard with some suspicion the suggestion that, were the criteria set out by the Government to be relaxed, there would be an inundation of people that would be deeply damaging to public services and things of that kind. If we introduce people into this country who are motivated, who want to be employed and who will be good citizens, that will be entirely for the benefit of this country. Look at the impact that the Asians who were expelled from east Africa have made in the time that they have been in the United Kingdom. That is the precedent that we should be concerned about, and no other. And that is as good a reason as any to vote for the motion.

Derek Twigg: The Gurkhas are superb, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said. The Brigade of Gurkhas is doing a superb job in his constituency, and I have had the honour of visiting it. However, the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. The changeover in Hong Kong did not just appear on the horizon; they knew many years beforehand that it was coming, and that it would affect the Gurkhasand, therefore, their terms and conditionsbut they did nothing about it.
	The real reason that I want to speak is my admiration for and involvement with the Brigade of Gurkhas during my two years as the Defence Minister with responsibility for Gurkha terms and conditions. I was proud to introduce and agree the new terms and conditions for Gurkhas, which are the best that they have ever had. I argued strongly in the Department for the extra money needed to support those new terms and conditions. I believe that the sum was 30 million a year, given the massive increase in pensions.
	A number of issues need to be considered in relation to any decision to extend entry rights to former Gurkhas, some of which have already been alluded to today. It was this Government who changed the immigration rules and allowed many Gurkhas to come in. We have heard that about 6,000 have settled here. We have also heard arguments about the figures. The Ministry of Defence team that dealt with Gurkha issues was superb, and I always had trust in what it provided me with as a Minister. When we look at the potential outcomes of such a decision, it is important that we do so with an open mind.
	It is possible that not all the Gurkhas who have served in the armed forces would decide to come to this country. However, the evidence so far is that all those who have been able to do so have done so, and I suspect that a large proportion of the 36,000 to 40,000 who have served in our armed forces would come here, with their family members. We are talking about a large number of ex-Gurkhas and their families coming to this country.
	The point was made about the effect of such a decision on other nationalities, including members of the Indian army. When we were dealing with the compensation for the far east prisoners of war, an appeal was lodged in London on behalf of between 40,000 and 50,000 former members of the Indian army from Pakistan and India. If we were to open the door, I do not believe for a moment that many of them would not seek to apply to come to this country, as well as many other ex-service personnel from other Commonwealth countries. I do not see how we could have a policy that says that it is okay for Gurkhas who have served this country to come here, but not okay for those others. I do not see how such a policy could legally stand up.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for those comments from my hon. Friend, given all his experience. In his time as a Minister, did he receive the advice that I have received on this issuenamely, that the abolition of the 1997 cut-off date would not only create a precedent for other groups but lead to legal action on behalf of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people?

Derek Twigg: That is absolutely the advice that I received. I dealt with many cases in which the Ministry of Defence needed legal advice during the various campaigns that were going on. I received very strong legal advice on this matter, and I adhered to it. There is a potential for such a decision to affect many tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people. I accept that we do not actually know how many people might be affected, but perhaps that is the point. There is a potential for such a change to affect many people, and we need to understand what that would involve.
	I also want to talk about the effect on Nepal. The loss of that many people could be a major problem. First, there could be a brain drain, because the people who get through the Gurkha test and training are Nepal's best people, and they would be leaving the country to come here. That would clearly have an impact on their society, both socially and economically. Secondly, Gurkhas' pensions are currently paid in Nepal, but they would be paid here following such a decision. That would result in a significant loss of income in Nepal, which is one of the world's poorest countries. We need to take account of that as well. It is all very well to say that we need to stick with the principle and allow people in, but such a decision would have an impact.

Michael Howard: But are not the Government of Nepal the best people to judge that? Did not they give unchallenged evidence in the court case that they had no objection to the Gurkhas being given the right to settle here?

Derek Twigg: I am suggesting that, given the potential numbers of people who would come here, there would clearly be a major impact, and I would be surprised if such a learned and intelligent gentleman did not understand that.
	The pensions that are paid to Gurkhas represent a good amount of money in Nepal. It would not be seen as a good amount of money in this country, so there would then be a campaign for pre-1997 Gurkha pensioners to get the same pension as current Gurkhas and, therefore, the rest of the British Army. That would be a significant extra cost as well. So there is another implication of which we need to take account.
	The fact is that when we agreed the terms and conditionsit took a number of years, as those matters were complex and difficult, and involved a lot of time and effort at the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and elsewherethey were widely welcomed by serving Gurkhas because there was a massive change in their circumstances. I announced the change and they were delighted that it was going to happen. We took that decision as a Labour Government, and we should not forget that this Labour Government made that massive change to Gurkha terms and conditions, which has given the best pay and pensions that the Gurkhas have ever had here.
	On the immigration changes, if I have any criticism of the Home Office, it is that it has perhaps been trying to be too helpful in many ways and has tried to change things to allow more people in. As a result, it gives weight to the argument of those who want more changes to allow more people to have the opportunity to come to this country as well. There would be major implications for housing, jobs, benefits and health support if tens of thousands of people could come here and did so, although we do not know whether they would. That is a major consideration and we need to take account of it.
	There are significant implications involved with changing the policy. Legally, we must go back to the point I made earlier: the advice I received was that such a change could open the door to many tens of thousands of other people coming to this country and we could not hold the line just for the Gurkhas, however much we may want to do so. In fairness, anyone who has fought for this country would have the same legal right as the Gurkhas. The fact that someone might have fought in the second world war and had in the past a chance to apply to come to this country would not cut much ice because the legal precedent would have been set. That is the key part of this debate.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Derek Twigg: No, I am sorry. Time is nearly up.
	I say to the Government that obviously I have concerns about the 20-year rule. I understand what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but people might perceive that rule as disproportionately helping officers, who generally serve longer than the 15-year average. I ask him to have a look at that. It has, in one sense, come across to me from my constituents as an unfairness in what was announced last week, but I stress to the House that it was this Government who made those massive changes to Gurkha terms and conditions and introduced the immigration changes.
	We have created many opportunities for more Gurkhas and their families to stay in this country, which did not happen under the previous Government. While I understand the Liberal Democrats' point of view, they are too simplistic in terms of what they want and it does not take account of the implications for the Government, the country as a whole, our social institutions, our jobs and the economy.
	I say to the Government, of course review the situation, but be aware of the many complications within this issue, which is not straightforward.

Robert Wilson: During my brief and much curtailed comments, I shall highlight several real-life cases in the knowledge that the Minister will have to hear what is the real plight faced by those very brave Gurkhas.
	I start by mentioning a true story of real heroism. Bhim Prasad Gurung, who lives in my constituency, was posted to Brunei with the 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles in 1964. During a jungle operation, Mr. Gurung and a small group of his comrades were ambushed by Indonesian guerrillas. They did not have their weapons, as they had been locked away for the night in a store.
	During the fierce and one-sided firefight that ensued, seven Gurkha soldiers were killed and the same number severely wounded. Mr. Gurung and the survivors somehow regained their rifles and took the fight to the enemy, but unfortunately they ran out of ammunition. Their wireless radio was destroyed and they could not call for help or support. Alone in the jungle, out of ammunition and surrounded by their dead and wounded comrades, they never gave up hope.
	Mr. Gurung and his comrades roared out the famous Gurkha war cry, Ayo Gorkhali!, which means, The Gurkhas are coming! Through their shouts of defiance, they terrified the enemy so much that, despite Mr. Gurung and his brothers in arms being outnumbered and without ammunition, their enemy retreated.
	That is just one example of heroism displayed by those brave Gurkha soldiers. It is truly a disgrace, then, when they are forced to come to this country and live in destitution after their retirement from the Army.
	Many of the brave Gurkhas who have settled in Reading have found themselves living in abject poverty. Former Gurkha Ash Bahadur Gurung served in the 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles for 16 years. He lives with his wife and their 12-year-old daughter in a small, rented house paid for out of the basic salary of his son, who is in the British Army. He struggles to make his Gurkha pension of 25.67 last the week. He says that the main problem he faces is getting his daughtershe goes to Reading girls' schoolto school, which costs 3 a day on the bus. That is a lot of money out of a 25 pension. Mr. Gurung's wife is not entitled to use the NHS, so she had to buy a pair of crutches and a wheelchair from the Red Cross after one of her legs was amputated after having cancer.
	To treat anyone in such a way is dreadful, but to do it to the brave Gurkhas is a national disgrace. The Home Office criteria that were put out recently are immoral. I could not have put it better than Joanna Lumley, who said that she is ashamed of this Government. Today, the whole nation is ashamed of them.

Nick Harvey: We have had a good and lively debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) started it off by reminding the House that we owe a debt of honour, which we are repaying with the penny-pinching mentality of an accountant, as the Government try to get away with the least that they think they can under the terms of the law court ruling. I do not know whether it will prove that they have done enough today, but I am perfectly clear that they have approached the task with as mean a spirit as they could. In the bandying of numbers between my hon. Friend and the Minister, we saw the absurdity of the Government's case.
	I do not assert that the 1,350 whose cases are currently at the Home Office would be the end of the matter, but it is nonsensical for the Government to total up the maximum number and then bandy it about as representing those who are likely to wish to take advantage of such a right. We do not devise our immigration policies with any other part of the world, the free movement of citizens within the EU, or the policies that we adopt for Commonwealth countries, on the basis that every person who could avail themselves of them is likely to do so. It is a completely illogical approach to the issue.
	I regret hearing Ministers do that, as they have the right to pat themselves on the back for what they did in 2004, and for their improvements to the conditions of Gurkhas, to which the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) referred. By doing what they did in 2004, and creating the entitlement for those who have served since 1997, they have crossed the line in principle. They have done the big thing, and are being dragged kicking and screaming on the smaller issue of who served before 1997. By creating mythological numbers, they are putting a stain on that for which they deserve congratulation.
	I do not accept the logic of the 1997 threshold as those on the Conservative and Labour Front Benches seem to accept. The fact that the Gurkhas were garrisoned in Hong Kong until 1997 is of no real significance. The Government seem almost to have looked for something that happened in 1997they might as well have asked who won the FA cup in that year, and hung everything around that. The point is of no significance. The Gurkhas were members of the British armed forces, and were sent to serve in different parts of the world, and it is of no consequence whatever that they happened to be garrisoned in Hong Kong. They cannot settle in Hong Kongtheir service was not to Hong Kong or China, but to Britain. That gives them the moral entitlement to settle in the UK, and that is what we are debating this afternoon.

George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will not; I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	A variety of Members who have Nepalese and Gurkhas living in their constituencies have rightly paid tribute to their contribution to civic society and the community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said that we should consider more broadly the role played by immigrants, and be more welcoming and open-minded towards the contribution that the Gurkhas could make if more of them came here in the future.
	I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who at the outset of his remarks set down a yardstick that he wanted the Government to clear. He said that in addition to their processing the 1,350 cases by a date in June, he wanted the review of those cases, which might lead to some amendment of the criteria that the Government have laid down, to be concluded by the summer recess. He seems to have been bought off rather easily with a letter from the Home Secretary, which, as has been mentioned, is a strange device in and of itself. The letter says nothing more than that the Government will begin the process by the summer recess; no indication is given as to how long it might take or when they might conclude the work.

George Howarth: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misread the letter. What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says is that the Government will examine the implications of those 1,350 decisions straight away and will make a statement in the House about what the implications are for the guidance. There will then be, as he rightly says, another review, which will commence before the end of the summer. The implications of those 1,350 decisions will be analysed and brought to the House immediately, and we will understand better what they are.

Nick Harvey: The rest of us have not had the advantage of seeing this letter, but the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the point that ours is a debt of honour and we must judge the Government on their deeds, not their words. I very much agree with him that the most objectionable of the criteria that have been laid down is the one relating to the 20 years of service, for exactly the reason to which many hon. Members have alluded.
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), reminded us of the excellent letter that the Committee sent, which was signed by all of its members, from across the parties. He rightly urges us to take with a pinch of salt a letter from the Home Secretary that has been catapulted into this debate at this stage. He was also right to say that the suggestion that we should conduct an impact assessment on the effect in Nepal is bizarre. I say that because surely it was when the Government allowed those who have served since 1997 the right of settlement that those who would have the most direct impact on the Nepalese economy were allowed to come to this country. The young ones coming to this country with many years of wage earning ahead of them will have far more impact than a relatively small number of those whose service took place long ago.
	The hon. Member for Halton asked why should we now open the doors to those who served in world war two. My father served throughout that war and he is now 90. The number of 90-year-olds across the world who are likely to wish to migrate to this country need not trouble or detain us for very long. That is a completely ludicrous way of examining the issue.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife says, it was a shabby decision to respond to the court ruling in quite this mean and minimalist way. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said in his interventions. It is perfectly clear to me that the public in this country are of the overwhelming view that we owe a debt of honour to the Gurkhas. When I see on the Order Paper the range of names of hon. Members who have signed the various amendments, it is perfectly clear to me that opinion in this House across the board is also that we owe a debt of honour to the Gurkhas.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock was right when he said that sooner or later the Government will end up losing this argument, having to give more ground and be seen to have done so with appalling bad grace, having been dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way despite having had this opportunity to recognise the obligation and to do something in the spirit in which we owe. People who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom deserve the right to settle and live in this country, and the sooner we recognise the debt of honour and repay it honourably, the sooner we will acknowledge these brave Gurkhas and everything that they have done for this country over 200 years. I commend the motion to the House.

Kevan Jones: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today's debate. Unfortunately, while some have been well informed, some have been less well informed. We are deeply grateful to Gurkhas for their service in Iraq and AfghanistanI have met some of themand in previous conflicts. I will not disparage or decry those people who are campaigning for Gurkha rights, including the actress Joanna Lumley, who does so with conviction. I disagree with some of the things that she says, but I do not question her integrity.
	As the Minister responsible for veterans, it is my privilege to take responsibility for Gurkha welfare. Two weeks ago I visited Nepal, where I met Gurkhas and the various organisations that support their welfare there. The impression given in the last week that Gurkhas are living in abject poverty and being ignored in Nepal is not the case. It is important that we consider the various types of pension. The service pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration said, receive a pension that can be accrued after only 15 years service, so people can retire at 33 on a full pension. For privates, that means 173 a month. That is equivalent to the wage of a skilled technician. For an NCO, the payment is 240 a month, and Government Ministers in Nepal earn 234 a month.

Mark Lancaster: Given the inconsistent approach that the Government of Nepal have taken to the recruitment of Gurkhasit was an election promise by the Maoists not to allow Britain to recruit Gurkhasand following his discussions in Nepal last week, can the Minister update the House on the current position in the light of the ruling?

Kevan Jones: I will come to that point in a moment.
	There are 26,000 Gurkha pensioners in Nepal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked how we know how many there are; we know because we are paying them pensions. Some 54 million is therefore going into the Nepalese economy. The DFID budget is only 56 million. Some have suggested that taking that money out of the Nepalese economy will have no effect, but that is definitely not the case. It is important to recognise that the service pensioners whom I met last week would not claim that they did not have a good standard of living.
	I am sad that lawyers representing the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation, which is involved in the campaign, failed to turn up for the meeting that I had arranged with them. They later issued a press release condemning me for not meeting them. The House should be careful when it comes to some of the tactics being used in this debate.
	I asked some of the service pensioners whether they would want to come here, and most said, No, but our families and children would. For those service pensioners, this Government have a proud record. The increase in their pensions over the past 10 years has been some 500 per cent., and we cannot just ignore the financial contribution that that makes to the economy of Nepal.
	The second group of pensioners is the welfare pensioners, who did not accrue the service pensionlike many who serve in the British Armybecause they did not serve for long enough. In this country, they get no pension at all, but in Nepal they are paid the equivalent of 30 a month through the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which the MOD supports through a grant of more than 1 million a year and through administrative support. Then there is the medical care. According to some of the commentators, the Gurkhas want to come here because they lack medical care in Nepal, but that is not the case. Service pensioners and welfare pensioners get free primary health care, and their secondary health care is supported by the trust. Service pensioners, who already get a good income, also get a percentage of the cost of their care paid.
	On the subject of the Gurkha Welfare Trust, may I put on the record our thanks to those people? They are doing a first-rate job and since my visit I have given a commitment that I will review MOD support and see what else we can do to help. Those people are truly inspirational, not just because of their help for Gurkhas but because of their charity work in villages and helping the wider community in Nepal.
	May I address some of the points that were made in the debate. Quite clearly, the main Opposition party has a problem with this issue. Over the past few days, I have been trying to work out what its policies would be. For example, on Monday  The Sun declared that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is now supporting the Gurkha campaign. Anyone can defy me if, after reading the article, they can say what conclusion he comes to. Today, we have heard a very clear policy. Under the regulations, there would be new criteria that allowed anyone who had served in Her Majesty's armed forces to settle in the UK. That would include personnel from India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore, Kenya and Rhodesia, to name but a few.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made a very good point about the Tory track record. When the Tories had the opportunity to reward servicemen and women, they did not. In the draw-down from Hong Kong, only one in seven of the Crown officers and able personnel was allowed in. We are seeing crocodile tears, I think. The Conservatives' policy would have an immense cost and would drive a coach and horses through the immigration policy of this country. I am glad that they have clarified that policy.
	Let me clear up another point about the 20 years. The idea that only officers who served would qualify is not true. They all started as privates and 55 per cent. of the people who will qualify will not be officers.
	The other issue that we need to clarify, which was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), concerns the position of the Government of Nepal and the court case. The Nepalese official who gave evidence to the court case did so in a private capacity. There was nobody there from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Nepalese Government have not given a view about whether they support Gurkha welfare or not.

Michael Howard: On that point, will the Minister give way?

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but I cannotI have only three minutes left.
	When I was in Nepal, I raised that point with the Nepalese Government. As the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) saidhe speaks with authority, and I wish that his Front Benchers would listen to him more on the subject of the Gurkhasit is quite clear that the Nepalese Government had a position of opposing Gurkha recruitment. There is some silence on that point now. Have they expressed any opinion on the court case? No, they have not. I met senior members of the Government, including the Prime Minister.
	May I address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson). I am very concerned about the case that he raises. If he has a Gurkha constituent whose wife is not entitled to NHS help, I want to see that evidence so that we can take up that case and see what can be done to help. The hon. Gentleman also raised a good point. If people are to retire here on a Gurkha service pension, that small amount will not go very far in supporting them. There is a danger that the next position will be that we should offer retrospection on pensions to increase them to the post-1997 level. That would be a huge additional cost to the taxpayer that we must take into account when recognising that point.
	There has been a lot of coverage over the past few days of the way in which the Government have treated Gurkhas. May I say that I think that we have done a lot for Gurkhas and their families, and that we are continuing to do that? We should be proud of that, as it is something that no other Government have ever done. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, this is the first time ever that settlement rights have been given to Gurkhas. Before 1997, only five had been allowed to settle. That shows our commitment. However, I advise people who debate this issue to put any motion to one side and look at the facts. Over the next few days, we need to look at the detailed work that the Gurkha Welfare Trust and other bodies are doing in Nepal to support Gurkhas. We are not talking about people living in abject poverty.
	We have had a good debate today. Everyone in the House supports the Gurkhas and appreciates the bravery that they have demonstrated in previous wars and still show today. This Government are committed to the Gurkhas and, as the Minister responsible, I am committed to doing my utmost both for Gurkhas serving now and for those who served before.

Question put (Standing Order No.31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 246.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House regrets the Government's recent statement outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom; recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years; notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here; believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since; is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority; further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

Damian Green: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the wake of that devastating vote for the Government, have you had any indication that Ministers intend to come to the House and make an immediate statement about how they propose to change their policy, as the House has now spoken clearly?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an historic defeat for the Government. It would be in order for a Minister to make a statement this very evening to explain how the Government propose to enact the clear will of the House to allow Gurkhas residence in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure the House will understand that as the matter was decided only a few seconds ago, it is unlikely that I would have had any notice of any proposals by the Government. This is obviously an extremely serious matter and a very serious decision. I am sure all the occupants of the Treasury Bench as well as the House of Commonshave heard what has happened today, and no doubt the Government will take whatever steps they feel are necessary.

Sri Lanka

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move on to a debate on Sri Lanka, and I must advise the House [Interruption.] Order. We have more serious business to deal with. Will those who are leaving please do so not en masse, but quietly, and let us get on with the next business. I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Edward Davey: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned that the fighting in Sri Lanka has already had a devastating effect on hundreds of thousands of civilians, with thousands killed and wounded, and many tens of thousands traumatised and suffering from lack of food, water and basic medicines; believes there is a real danger of an even greater bloodbath in the next few days if a ceasefire is not immediately agreed between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; further believes that access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media throughout the conflict zone and to all internally displaced persons, each of whom must, like every Sri Lankan citizen, have all their internationally recognised rights guaranteed; calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and peace talks; urges the Government energetically to continue and increase its efforts within the United Nations, European Union and Commonwealth and with others to broker a ceasefire; and urges the Government to make it clear to all sides that those who are proved to have committed war crimes in this conflict will be in danger of arrest, prosecution and punishment wherever they go for the rest of their lives.
	For once, it is welcome that the Foreign Secretary is not joining us for a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. Although we hope to hear from him in the House tomorrow on the subject of Sri Lanka, I am sure the whole House will wish him well [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat what I said to the House? We have business to get on with now. It is important that the hon. Member addressing the House should be allowed to do so properly.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As I was saying, although we hope to hear from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow on the subject of Sri Lanka, I am sure the whole House will wish him well as he visits Sri Lanka today, with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, even if his Swedish counterpart, Mr. Bildt, has been outrageously prevented from accompanying them. This trip by Foreign Ministers to Sri Lanka is an important European initiative, and we hope that it will combine with the efforts of others, especially those of the Americans and the Indians, to make both sides in that bloody conflict reflect hard and deep before the current nightmare turns into a total catastrophe.
	I hope our motion may even add just a little to the strength of the message that the Foreign Ministers can convey, especially to the Sri Lankan Government. We tried to word our motion in a way that could garner support from across the House, so it is slightly unfortunate that the Government could not refrain from tabling their own amendment. I hope that Ministers might reflect before 7 pm that if they decided not to press their amendment, it might be possible to unite all parties and send a unanimous message from the House of Commons.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would show themselves in a much better light and a much more powerful position if, just occasionally, they accepted that somebody else might have an idea which might be a good one and which they might support?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. After what has just happened, the Government may want to reflect on that. Nevertheless, in this debate I want to try to bring the sides together, because during recent weeks and months I have worked with colleagues from all parties in the House in joint efforts to persuade our Government and others to go the extra mile for peace. With others, we have engaged closely with the British Tamil community and heard and felt its distress and its heartfelt angry demands for a ceasefire. That amazing British Tamil community has brought its protest to the steps of Westminster and Whitehall, and I believe that it has made its voice heard with dignity in a peaceful protest and in an effective manner. Sometimes, for many of us, it has been difficult to experience its raw emotion, visit the crowds in Parliament square and see its graphic pictures, and not ourselves become deeply emotional about its struggle for peace and justice.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like me, the hon. Gentleman has visited the Tamil demonstration on a number of occasions and he will have seen the 200,000 people who marched through London a couple of weeks ago. Is he not astonished that the majority of the British media absolutely ignored the issue and refused to report it until the last few days? As a result of that the Tamil community feels a sense of anger and isolation.

Edward Davey: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The British media should be asking themselves some serious questions, because the scale of what is happening in Sri Lanka, and the scale of the protest here by British citizens, should have been reported.

Simon Hughes: I just want to reinforce that intervention and, I am sure, the mood of the House. A couple of hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I were with the head of human rights of the Commonwealth, and one of the three Tamils who were with us could barely speak because her relatives are in the part of Sri Lanka that is affected. She has no contact with them. For all she knows, her brother is dead; he is certainly out of contact. On top of the 70,000-plus who are recognised as having died before this year, and the at least 6,000 already officially this year, there are every day further losses to people in this country as well as in Sri Lanka.

Edward Davey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is that emotion that we have all experienced from talking to our constituents that we bring to this debate. I will try to focus on the facts and the logic of the argument, but I hope that the House will bear with me if I too sometimes get quite passionate about this.

John Battle: I appreciate that, but to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Sri Lankan Government will not let the media in, and we must press for that. If I may say so in front of those on the Government Front Bench, I was disappointed to see that the Government amendment to the motion has omitted the point about ensuring that internationally the press have a presence and report what is going on. It is important that we campaign for that.

Edward Davey: I agree, and that is why it is in the motion, and it is even worse. I am sorry if we are always going that bit further, but let us remember that the Sri Lankan Government are suppressing their own media in Colombo, the Sinhala media, because many Sinhalese people are ashamed of their Government and many in the Sinhalese media want to expose what that Government are doing.
	What is happening in Sri Lanka? On a small coastal strip of land in a so-called no-fire zone near the town of Mullaitivu on the far north-east of Sri Lanka are the remaining Tamil Tiger forces, who may number as few as 200 seasoned fighters. With them on an area of land of around 5 square miles are a large number of civilians. Estimates vary. The Sri Lankan Government give a figure of around 20,000, but some agencies say it is 120,000. Whatever the figure, it is clear that the conditions for those people are extremely bleaklittle food and water, limited medical supplies that are fast running out and totally inadequate shelter. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that in excess of 1,000 wounded require urgent treatment. It warns that there is an imminent danger of an epidemic and severe malnutrition. On one side of that human mass there is the sea, and on the other there is the Sri Lankan army. Although there are mixed reports about who is firing what, there seems little doubt that heavy shelling of the no-fire zones, which is where the civilians are, has taken place, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, talk about the satellite evidence that he has seen.
	There are credible reports that such bombardment is continuing, and there is a clear sense that the Sri Lankan army is preparing for a final offensive. How did we get hereto this battle, on this strip of land, with those tens of thousands of civilians caught up in the midst of the fighting?

Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend is making an important and powerful speech. He talked about the Sri Lankan Government's wish to achieve a final answer. Does he not agree that a final answer will not be achieved by the destruction of civilians and, indeed, the Tamil rebels, because millions of Tamils throughout the world will resent such a settlement? One cannot achieve a final settlement by military destruction.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend makes the point that I shall touch on later, and I am sure that other hon. Members will want to repeat it.
	We got to this situation in the short term because of a military push, begun this January by the Sri Lankan army, that has seen it take the key towns of Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu and the strategic causeway of the Elephant pass. In the fighting to take those towns, it is estimated that, this year alone, more than 5,000 civilians have been killed, including at least 500 children, and more than 12,000 people have been injured. That recent fighting is only the latest episode in a deep dispute that goes back many decades. Essentially, it is an ethnic dispute between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, with the inter-communal violence beginning with riots and pogroms dating back at least to the 1950s. The Tamil Tigers were formed in 1975, and the current civil war is widely considered to date from 1983. Since 1983, well over 70,000 people have lost their lives. On top of that, there has been a massive outpouring of refugees, with an estimated 450,000 internally displaced people, large numbers of people who have disappeared and even larger numbers who have fled abroad, including to this country.
	Today is not the time for a full history of the dispute and conflict, nor a detailed analysis as part of some attempt to allocate blame and responsibility. The main demand of the motion, of the protestors and of the international community is for a ceasefire, now. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for ensuring that Britain was the first country to lead the global call for a ceasefire. Although I shall continue, with other MPs from all parts of the House, to push the Government to go further, I am grateful for the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown on this issue and for the courtesy that he has shown to me and other MPs in meeting us on several occasions.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, certainly, for bringing the issue to the House today. Does he not agree that one of our big obstacles is the attitude of Russia and China, in particular, to United Nations assistance and so forth?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall touch on that very point in my remarks.
	Despite my congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats, some Labour and Conservative MPs and, above all, Tamils throughout the world want the Government and the international community to do moreif necessary, much moreto achieve that ceasefire, pushing the diplomatic efforts to their very limits. Everyone who has studied the conflict recognises that obtaining a ceasefire now will be desperately difficult, but it is utterly vital if we are to avoid a massacre.
	The Sri Lankan army clearly wants what it believes would be its final victory: to capture or kill all remaining Tamil Tigers and their leader, Prabhakaran, after 25 years of trying. The army believes that any massacre would be the Tigers' fault for not allowing civilians to leave, and it cites credible evidence that the Tigers have prevented civilians from leaving the coastal strip. But, the Tigers are committed not to surrender. It is a long-developed image or strategy that those hardened fighters wear cyanide vials around their necks to avoid capture.
	The Tigers would probably argue that some of the civilians, at least, remain with them voluntarily for fear of what the Sri Lankan army might do to them. So we have, on one side, an army intent on crushing the Tigers and determined to avoid a ceasefire, and on the other, a small force, determined never to surrender, offering up proposals for a ceasefire but desperate for the civilians to remain with them as a human guarantee against the final attack.
	At this dramatic hour, I believe that the international community, by hard argument and threats, has to persuade both sides to back away from the abyss of slaughter.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman was generous in his tributes to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary; may I pay tribute to him for the work that he and his colleagues have done on this issue? Does he agree that this is not just about the EU's role? Although, of course, we welcome the visit of the French Foreign Secretary, and our own, to Colombo, the Indian Governmentthey, too, have called for a ceasefirealso have a very important role to play. Any discussions among the international community must include the countries in the region.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in danger of having lots of self-congratulation, but I congratulate him on the efforts that he has undertaken from the Labour Benches and with Indian politicians whom he knows. For all of us working on this, that is very important.

Kim Howells: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he agree that it is very difficult for a state to put pressure on a non-state player, which is what the LTTE is? It has had a murderous history; it reinvented suicide bombings, and it has killed very many people. The Tamil people are ill served by it. I hope that he will tell us how such an organisation can be pressurised into some kind of constructive action other than the desperate act in which it is engaged of trying to ensure its own survival.

Edward Davey: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a former Foreign Office Minister, and I do not disagree with some of his remarks. His own Foreign Secretary has pointed out that democratic Governments have to abide by higher standards than such non-state actors, and I hope that he agrees with that.
	The positive points that I want to make about how we can possibly get a ceasefire in this nightmare situation come not from the Liberal Democrats or the Government but from the International Crisis Group, which set out, only nine days ago, a set of sensible measures that I should like to share with the House.

Virendra Sharma: rose

Edward Davey: I would like to make some progress, and then I will give way.
	First, the ICG calls on the Sri Lankan Government to halt their offensivea self-evident but crucial first step given that they hold the cards. Secondly, and diplomatically, it speaks of a humanitarian pause, rather than a ceasefireto make it easier for the Sri Lankan Governmentof initially a two-week period, overseen by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is hoped that in those two weeks, relief supplies could be got to civilians who want to stay, and a humanitarian corridor could be established for all those wanting to leave. The ICG wants UN agencies to be able to undertake a proper and full assessment of how many civilians are left, and their needs, to ensure that the relief is sufficient and appropriate. Thirdly, it calls on the UN and the ICRC to be part of a process, unhindered by the Sri Lankan Government that would bring strong, international guarantees of safety to any civilians or Tamil Tigers prepared to lay down their arms and cross over into Government-controlled areas. That is key. It is only part of the answer, but if the international community can give those guarantees, it is more likely that at least some of the Tigers may cross over.

Andrew Dismore: rose

Edward Davey: Let me just finish this point.
	Finally, the ICG says that the Tamil Tigers must allow civilians to leave the areaan obvious point with which I think all of us in the House would agree.
	The ICG is in no doubt that all that would be difficult, partly for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) mentioned, and it talks about serious international pressure on both sides. It speaks of pressure on the Tamil Tigers from the Tamil diaspora, and there are signs that many in the diaspora want to put that pressure on them, because they have relatives who are the civilians at risk. It mentions pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, especially from Sri Lanka's international funders. It rightly says that they must be told that all non-emergency development funding will end if there is a bloodbath. That is an important financial sanction that they must be made aware of.
	The group also speaks of pressure on both sides, to be delivered to their leaders in clear statements by the wider international community, making it clear that
	they are liable to be held personally accountable for breaches of international humanitarian law.
	In other words, the world has to use the strongest possible threats of future financial and legal sanctions on the leaders of both sides unless they step back from the brink.

Adam Price: Do the financial sanctions to which the hon. Gentleman is referring include the possibility of the UK voting against the $1.9 billion loan proposal for Sri Lanka that is currently in front of the International Monetary Fund?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. I want to seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in her response, that the Government will oppose any proposal for that $1.9 billion loan that is put to the IMFI do not believe that it has formally been put to it yet. It would be quite wrong to make such a loan at the moment. The IMF should seek the guarantees that we are all seeking, that our reasonable humanitarian demands be met.

Andrew Dismore: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that so far, the Sri Lankan Government have proved themselves utterly impervious to whatever representations and arguments are advanced to them? Indeed, they go out of their way to insult and libel those who criticise them. Does he also agree that one of the most important things for the civilians who are able to get out is that they are kept in decent, humane conditions, not in appalling conditions in what can only be described as concentration camps, which the Sri Lankan Government will not allow them to leave?

Edward Davey: I agree on both points. The Sri Lankan Government have sought to curb free speech among democratically elected politicians in this House by harassing us and calling us white Tigers. They have also harassed councillors and political activists for speaking out in favour not of one side but of the human rights of all Sri Lankan civilians. That is not acceptable.
	I hope that the whole House shares our view that the time has come for total clarity from the international community about the personal and political implications for all the leaders if they do not stop the fighting. That is why our motion asks our Government to
	make it clear to all sides that those who are proved to have committed war crimes in this conflict will be in danger of arrest, prosecution and punishment wherever they go for the rest of their lives.
	It is those words that make our motion much stronger than the Government's amendment. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is making it clear to the Sri Lankan Government, at least in private, and to any representatives of the LTTE whom he meets, that if the fighting continues and the feared bloodbath occurs, leaders on both sides risk being personally prosecuted for war crimes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As well as trying to secure an end to the fighting, surely the priority must be to alleviate some of the worst suffering. Some 100,000 people have managed to escape the fighting into camps in the past week, but perhaps 50,000 remain. Is it not incumbent on the Sri Lankan Government to allow all the international agencies into the relevant areas to offer whatever assistance they can, which is vitally needed at the present time?

Edward Davey: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall come to the camps of internally displaced people towards the end of my remarks, but I wish first to continue to discuss how we can get a ceasefire, which is the immediate problem. With that ceasefire, we could get more humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering.

Tom Brake: I know that my hon. Friend has been reflecting on whether the term genocide should be applied to this situation. Has he come to any conclusion about that?

Edward Davey: Not yet, but I shall wish to ask the Minister a few questions about that, because I know that it concerns many Members.

Joan Ryan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I shall let the right hon. Lady in, as she has worked very hard on this issue.

Joan Ryan: I appreciate that. I simply wanted to reiterate that no one herenone of us who has worked on the issuesupports violence or fighting. I know that that is the hon. Gentleman's view. We want a permanent ceasefire. The previous ceasefire led to negotiations and it is important to recognise that the LTTE did not walk away from them, thus ending the ceasefire. I believe that we can get negotiations that include everybody who needs to be involved and commit ourselves, as the Foreign Secretary has done, to a political solution. There is no military solution to the problemit must be political. That must involve everybody. The Government of Sri Lanka have shown no commitment to a ceasefire, yet the LTTE have called for one on numerous occasions.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is right. When Prime Minister Wickremanayake was in power in Colombo in 2002, he ensured that the ceasefire agreement was concluded. A massive change occurred only when he was voted out of officeby only 200,000 votes; many Tamil people did not voteand President Rajapakse's party came to power. Many Sinhalese, including many Sinhalese politicians, want to pursue the path of peace. No one in the House is taking sides. I believe that we are united in opposition to human rights abuses and violence, whoever perpetrates them.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose

Lee Scott: rose

Edward Davey: I will give way, but then I shall make some progress. I give others who want to intervene that warning now.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman hinted at the view that the Sri Lankan Government and other forces in Sri Lanka are promulgating: that somehow Britain is trying to tell them how to run the country. I believe that there is unanimity in the House that our role in any dispute in which we are not a direct partner is to uphold international human rights standards. That is the duty of any democratically elected politician; it is at the heart of the motion and the amendment.

Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Lady.

Lee Scott: As the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, the Sri Lankan Government do not seem to be listening to anybody. Although we hope that the Foreign Secretary and France's Foreign Secretary achieve a ceasefire, if they do not and the Sri Lankan Government continue not to listen, has not the time come for a suspension from the Commonwealth until they listen?

Edward Davey: We need to consider all those sorts of sanctions. President Rajapakse, his brother and his Cabinet appear to be unwilling to listen. As I have said, they need to understand that there are consequences if a so-called Government behave in that way.
	I wanted to discuss the United Nations because I have been saddened by the failure to achieve a resolution and demand for a ceasefire at the UN. In public and in private, I have urged our Government to push hard for one. We have had a friendly debate, and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully with me that the danger of a veto by at least one of the permanent five members of the Security CouncilI assume Russiameans that he will not pursue such a strategy. However, I wonder, given the stark reality in Sri Lanka, whether Russia or China might be persuaded at least to abstain. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) may be able to enlighten the House, given that he was recently at the United Nations, about the possibility of that. It would be fantastic because individual countries threatening future sanctions could, through a United Nations Security Council resolution, turn into the powerful voice of the world speaking as one.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although, given that he invited the intervention, I suppose he needed to give way.
	I join other hon. Members in complimenting the hon. Gentleman on his introduction to the debate and on the fact that we are holding it. I hope to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye and make a short contribution later.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that I was in the United Nations building recently. I engaged with many people, and told some that I would respect their privacy, so I will not talk about them. However, on the hon. Gentleman's precise point, I was in the presence of our ambassador to the United Nations and members of the UK mission with ambassadors of at least one of those countries to which he referred, if I can put it that way.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that, from extensive recent experience of diplomacy in conflict and post-conflict situations, I am satisfied that our people in New York could not do any more to generate the flexibility that we need from those who are not like-minded with us on the issue to get it before the Security Council in some fashion or another, if he understands what all that means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma in wanting to intervene briefly but finding it very difficult to do so because the matter is so complicated, but let me tell the House that there is already a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches and a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. One hon. Member's intervention can cost another hon. Member a speech. I do not want to curtail debate in any way, but I just hope that all hon. Members will remember that. If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye later, perhaps he would be better off making his remarks then, rather than proceeding now.

Edward Davey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be third time lucky.
	Just four years agoI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reply to this point in his remarksthe United Nations committed itself to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. We have to start making that mean something. In this case it surely means that the United Nations would have international legitimacy in acting. However, if this case is another example of where the United Nations does not act, I fear that it will add to a history that is not good for its credibility. I am not suggesting that we may see a failure that is comparable to what happened in Rwanda, but we could get close.
	If genocide is not already occurring, as many allege that it is, there must be a fear that it could occur. I understand that the legal definition of the crime of genocide contained in articles 2 and 3 of the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is very tight. Many mass killings that have taken place round the world, and which we condemn in the strongest terms, would not fit that definition of the crime of genocide. Yet Professor Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the university of Illinois, believes that there may already be a case, and he has some credibility, because he won two orders from the World Court using the genocide convention in relation to the former Yugoslavia. I would therefore like the Minister to tell the House whether the Foreign Office has sought or is prepared to seek legal opinion on whether what is happening constitutes genocide. It is incumbent on us as a signatory to the convention to do that at least.
	I do not think that the wider international community has made its voice heard nearly loudly enough on the issue, or that it has used all the tools to get the ceasefire. The Commonwealth, which was mentioned earlier, has been too quiet. We are told that it is working below the radar. I only hope that it is being as direct as it needs to be. I also hope that the Commonwealth does not come to regret not opting for the route of public pressure. As for the Indian Government, their recent change of heart is welcome. It is good that they now appear to be asking the Sri Lankan Government to hold off, but that has come rather late and does not have a lot of credibility for many Tamils in Britain and around the world. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister what else the Government are planning to do to persuade other Governments to join the Europeans and the Americans in urgently building a bigger and far more determined international coalition to stop the bloodshed.
	We also need to remember in this debate that many people outside the immediate conflict zone are suffering greatly. Indeed, within the Vanni region there are a large number of camps established by the Sri Lankan military to hold civilians escaping the fighting and others displaced by the monthsindeed, yearsof conflict. Some estimates suggest that internally displaced people in the Vanni region alone number more than 180,000. We hear that the Foreign Secretary is today visiting one of the so-called welfare villages near the town of Vavuniya. I hope he is asking some tough questions about what is happening in those camps, because there is credible evidence that the rights of Tamil civilians in them are being seriously restricted.
	Last night, I was e-mailed by one of my Surbiton constituents, Mrs. Dashora, who fled here in 1983. She told me that three of her family members had recently gone to a camp near Vavuniya, and that they had reported to her that the situation was, if anything, worse. There was little food, and there were severe restrictions behind barbed wire, with families separated and no contact with the outside world except for those who had some sort of telephone.
	We understand that the Sri Lankan army is trying to screen the displaced people in the camps, to weed out any Tamil Tigers, but the stories that we are getting about that screeningand, indeed, the evidence from Tamil refugees who have come to this country following previous outbreaks of violencefill me with alarm. That is why our motion says that
	access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media.
	People might wonder why Tamils feel as they do about these army camps; it is because of the history of such camps for displaced people in previous outbreaks of fighting. The Sri Lankan army has promised to resettle all displaced people, but that simply has not happened in the past. Thousands of Tamils were kept in camps such as these for years and prevented from returning to their villages because the army had designated 30 per cent. of the Jaffna peninsula and coastline a militarily sensitive zone. We must press for international oversight of all these camps.
	I have not spent much time today detailing the history, attributing blame, setting out a long-term solution to the conflict or second-guessing what will happen after either the bloodbath that we fear or the ceasefire we crave. But I will make one personal and one political point on these matters before concluding. Personally, I have developed some great friendships in the Tamil community in my constituency. That has not been difficult; Tamil people are among the kindest and most cultured people I have ever met. It has also been necessary for me to get to know many Tamils, because they have needed my help, primarily with the Home Office. Through that work, I have heard some horrific stories of torture and of gross violations of human rights. Such people included Tamils who never supported, and never wanted to support, the LTTE, until the LTTE became, in the eyes of the majority of Tamils, the only real voice left to the Tamil people.
	So I accept that, over the past 12 years, I have heard most about this conflict from one side. Yet I and other colleagues in the House have always focused, straight and true, on the human rights of every Sri Lankan citizen. I am not, as was discussed earlier, a white Tiger. It just seems to me that many ordinary Tamil people have suffered appallingly over the decades at the hands of some Sinhala politicians who have opted for the nationalist, ethnic path all too readily.
	This brings me to my political point on what must happen now. President Rajapakse must propose, for discussion with the Tamils, a constitutional programme including devolved autonomy, protection of minority rights and economic development for the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, at the very least. Why? Because his military solution is not a solution. Only negotiations and peaceful politics can produce a solution. Defeating the Tigers in the coastal strip round Mullaitivu will not solve the dispute. A bloodbath would only sow the seeds of bitter hatred and violent struggle for many more years to come.
	In moving the motion tonight, let me be clear about why the ceasefire is so important. Yes, it is about stopping the killing now, but it is also an essential ingredient for getting the permanent and just peace that all sides must surely want. Without the ceasefire, this struggle might continue through 25 more years of killing.

Gillian Merron: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from House to the end of the Question and add:
	strongly supports the efforts of the Government within the United Nations, the European Union, the G8 and other international bodies to bring about an end to the conflict in Sri Lanka, to open the way for an international humanitarian relief effort and to promote a process of political reconciliation; welcomes the 7.5 million the Government has already committed to the relief effort; supports the Foreign Secretary's joint visit to Sri Lanka with his French counterpart; endorses the Government's calls for the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to declare an immediate ceasefire and to allow the civilians trapped in the No Fire Zone to leave unhindered, facilitated by the UN; urges both parties to the conflict to allow full and unrestricted access for humanitarian aid to be safely delivered; supports the Government's efforts to persuade the government of Sri Lanka to allow international oversight of all internally displaced persons, including a transparent registration process and improved conditions within the camps with better access to food, water and medical facilities; urges the government of Sri Lanka to allow freedom of movement in and out of the camps so that families separated by the conflict can be reunited; and endorses the Government's efforts to persuade the government of Sri Lanka to initiate a process of political reconciliation with all speed as the only way of ensuring a lasting peace between the communities.
	I can assure the House that the Government have tabled this amendment simply in order to set out the full scale of international concern and action.
	I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents to draw attention to the truly appalling humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, and I shall endeavour to be as concise as possible, as I am keen to hear their contributions to today's debate.
	We value the Tamil community and the important contribution that it makes to British society. The demonstrations here in London and elsewhere across the world show the understandable depth of feeling in a community where, as we have heard, many have seen their friends and relatives killed or injured in the conflict, or remain concerned about the safety of their loved ones.
	The conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelamotherwise known as the Tamil Tigersis, as we know, in its 26th year. Definitive figures are not available, but that conflict shocks us all in that it is widely believed to have claimed more than 70,000 lives. Even more shocking is the fact that the United Nations estimates that, since January, 400 civilians have died every single week.
	As is the nature of long-running wars, the weight of suffering is felt most acutely by civiliansmen, women and children who did not and do not choose to go to war, and certainly have no wish to die. For every one of those 70,000 lives lost, the lives of many others have been shattered. This is the human cost of that conflict.
	Even today, about 50,000 civilians remain trapped between rebel Tamil forces on one side and the Government forces on the other. They are caught in a conflict zone of just 5 square miles, with nowhere to hide. No army could possibly wage a war in that small an area, containing that many civilians, without causing many deaths.
	The LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government must abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law and do everything possible to protect civilian lives. So we call on the Sri Lankan Government to call a ceasefire and on the LTTE forces to allow civilians to leave the no-fire zone.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend pass on the thanks of the House to the Foreign Secretary for making the journey to Colombo? I know that he has just called for another ceasefirehe has sent a letter to all Members of the Housebut in keeping with the spirit of the debate, can there be discussions between the usual channels to ensure that the House does not divide on the issue? The Liberal Democrat motion before the House is similar to the Prime Minister's amendment. It would send a powerful signal, while our Foreign Secretary is in that country, if the House united behind one message.

Gillian Merron: I hear my right hon. Friend. I thank him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for their generous and gracious support of the Foreign Secretary, who is indeed in Sri Lanka on our behalf promoting our overriding priority, which is the prevention of further civilian death and suffering.
	As the House has heard, the Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka with French Foreign Minister Kouchner. I spoke with the Foreign Secretary by phone this morning to receive an update. I can tell the House that in meetings with the President and others, the Foreign Secretary pushed hard for full UN and non-governmental organisation access to civilians in the camps and elsewhere. He visited some of the camps near Vavuniya in the north. While there, he told me of the disturbing accounts that he heard of families being forcibly separated as they tried to flee the fighting.
	The Foreign Secretary also confirmed to me just how clear it is that the LTTE is preventing civilians from leaving the conflict zones. The use of civilians as human shields is abhorrent and must end.
	Visits to Sri Lanka by the British and French Foreign Ministers, along with the visit earlier this week by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), send a powerful message to the Sri Lankan Government that the plight of civilians is an issue of international concern. The visit by the cross-party group of MPs next week will do likewise.
	Civilians have always been our No. 1 priority. I again thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for his supportive remarks about the Prime Minister, who was the first Government leader to call for a ceasefire back in January.
	We welcomed the two-day ceasefire that took place earlier this month, but it did not achieve the objective. It was not enough time, and the LTTE prevented all but 300 civilians leaving the conflict zone. Since then, the Prime Minister has spoken to the Sri Lankan President twice to make clear our profound concerns about the continuing situation. He called for an end to the fighting and for civilians to be allowed out to find the safety they deserve. The Sri Lankan President issued a statement a few days later, saying that the Government would
	end the use of heavy calibre guns, combat aircraft and aerial weapons which could cause civilian casualties.
	But that is also not enough. Only a full ceasefire will allow all civilians to leave the conflict zone and reach safety.

Barry Gardiner: All hon. Members will have noted what my hon. Friend and the Sri Lankan Government have said about stopping the barrage, heavy gun attack and bombing. Is she confident that that has stopped, however? Many Members believe that it has continued unabated. The much-vaunted use of small arms fire only has not taken place. There is duplicity from the Sri Lankan Government.

Gillian Merron: It is not possible to be confident, as my hon. Friend inquires, simply because the international presence on the ground is insufficient, as I will outline. The situation is difficult to verify, so much of the Foreign Secretary's work has been to demand unfettered international access.

Adam Price: Given that the Sri Lankan Government and their military are implicated in the slaughter of their own citizens, possibly deceiving the world in doing so, at what point is it no longer acceptable for Sri Lanka to continue as a full member of the Commonwealth?

Gillian Merron: On the matter of the Commonwealth, our view, and the international view, is that it is better to keep engaging with the Sri Lankan Government. That is our way forward. Isolation will not produce the forward look that we need. Although the matter was not on the Commonwealth ministerial action group's formal agenda, I took the opportunity to raise the UK Government's concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka.
	The Government's second priority is to ensure that those civilians who escape the fighting get the help that they need. An estimated 180,000 people have managed to flee the fighting so far. They are in, or travelling to, internally displaced persons camps. The UK is helping to provide the equipment, food and water needed by those in the camps. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a further 2.5 million in humanitarian aid, bringing the UK's contribution to 7.5 million. I assure the House that all of that is directed through international agencies and none goes through the Sri Lankan Government. The Sri Lankan Government's obligation is to ensure unhindered and safe access for international aid, so that it gets to where it is needed. We have seen some progress in the past week, but more needs to be done. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to grant full access to international humanitarian agencies, which must be able to do their work and satisfy themselves over the arrangements for civilians leaving the conflict area.
	The internally displaced persons camps must be apolitical and non-military, and deliver effective aid to traumatised people. Better access to medical facilities, food and drinking water must be provided, along with transparent registration processes. We were pleased about the arrival this weekend of 5,000 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees tents, the transportation costs for which were covered by the United Kingdom Government. However, delays in getting Government clearance for those and many other things meant that people suffered unnecessarily. The camps must be run properly and be temporary. We will hold the Sri Lankan Government to their promise to return 80 per cent. of internally displaced persons to their homes by the end of the year.
	That leads me to our third priority: to find a long-term political solution to the conflict.

Edward Davey: This is a small point, but why 80 per cent. by the end of the year? A huge number of people are being kept in these camps, so why? Are the Government asking the Sri Lankan Government and the Sri Lankan army that question?

Gillian Merron: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the reason is that this is about what is possible in putting the infrastructure in place and demining. This will not be the end of the story, but it is about being realistic about meeting and assisting to meet things in that way.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka urging an urgent ceasefire. I realise that the Minister is coming to this in her speech, but does she accept that a ceasefire is not in itself enough to prevent a resurgence of fighting at some point in the future? There has to be a political engagement with all the representatives of all shades of Tamil opinion; otherwise, a ceasefire would merely postpone the horrors of today to the disasters of tomorrow.

Gillian Merron: I absolutely agree with the assessment set out by my hon. Friend, because he rightly says that although conventional military action could be drawing to a close, an end to the fighting does not mean an end to the conflict. The Sri Lankan Government must know that some LTTE members will simply switch to guerrilla warfare to continue their fight. As we have heard today, there can be no military solution to this conflict; there can only be a political one. Ultimately, it is for the Sri Lankans themselves to resolve this conflict. That is why the UK and others have for years pressed the Sri Lankans to begin a political process that takes into account the legitimate aspirations of all communities in Sri Lankathe Sinhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims and others. The Sri Lankan Government must show the boldness and vision necessary to find a lasting solution to more than 25 years of conflict.

Andrew George: The Minister is right to say that although the Sri Lankan Government crave a military victory, there is a big difference between that and a military solutionthat will clearly not be delivered as a result of the actions in which they are engaged at the moment. She seems to be saying that peace is a process rather than a single event. What practical contribution have the UK Government been offering in recent months and years to a peace process? It is clear that both sides must engage in order to achieve the long-term sustainable peace that we all crave, and that the whole of the Tamil community needs to be fully engaged in that kind of political process.

Gillian Merron: I am coming on to discuss the role of the international community, so I shall just take the next intervention.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) were right to say that what happens in the medium and long term is what will matter most. For now, may I ask the question about the emperor's clothes, as it were? Do we believe that the LTTE can be left controlling populations and holding territory in the short term?

Gillian Merron: The answer to that question is that we need to be thinking about what we can do in the international community in order to make progress. To repeat a point, it is important to say to the Sri Lankan Government that even if they think that a military solution is an answer, they must consider the day after the end to that, when they think the military solution has delivered the result. Our concern is that no thought, no planning and no preparation is being done.

Andrew Love: rose

Gillian Merron: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I shall make some progress.

Andrew Love: Just to remind the House, there are three sides involved in this; we ought not to forget the Muslim community, which has distinct needs in the Sri Lankan context. The Sri Lankan Government will argue that they already have a process under waythe All Party Representatives Committee. It is important for the international community to convince the Sri Lankan Government that that process does not have Tamil community support, and that if we are actually to get a peace process under way, we need to bring all sidesall shades of Tamil opinioninto it.

Gillian Merron: As I have just said, and am happy to reiterate, the answer can be the answer only if it brings together all communities. There is no other way forward.
	The UK is working with the international community to build a co-ordinated international response, which is, of course, the most powerful way forward. The UK has taken a leading role in bringing Sri Lanka on to the international community's agenda. We have closely co-ordinated with others, particularly the US, France and India, and the Foreign Secretary has issued joint statements with the French and Americans. We have played an active role in securing renewed calls by the EU Foreign Ministers and the G8 to ensure that civilians are protected.
	With regard to the UN, we welcome the personal focus that the UN Secretary-General has given to Sri Lanka, and his statements on the plight of civilians. We have also supported the separate visits to Sri Lanka by the UN representatives for humanitarian affairs and for internally displaced persons, as well as by the Secretary-General's chef de cabinet. It is important that they were able to see the appalling situation for themselves.
	Despite opposition, we have successfully worked for these representatives to give informal briefings to the Security Council. The UN has a vital role to play in keeping the spotlight of international concern and action focused on Sri Lanka. We believe that a UN Security Council resolution would be an effective demonstration of the views of the international community. However, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, not all permanent members of the Security Council believe that it is appropriate for the Council to discuss this issue. Without the agreement of all permanent members, we cannot get a resolution. My real concern is that if we went forward with a resolution and it was vetoed, we would have an even worse situation, because the Sri Lankan Government would simply say, The UN has agreed with us that no action should be taken. That would not be a good outcome for the people of Sri Lanka.
	The matter of war crimes is very important. This conflict has been taking place in the shadows due to the limited international presence. Actions must be fully investigated, and if war crimes have been committed they should be identified. But, as in all conflicts, it is difficult for investigations to be made while the conflict is ongoing. Under international law, the primary burden for investigation rests on the authority against whose forces allegations of war crimes are made.

Tom Brake: What is the Minister's view on the role of the Commonwealth and how effective it has been so far? Can she think of any circumstances in which Sri Lanka should host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011?

Gillian Merron: I have already mentioned the Commonwealth and my input on the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We continue to work with the international community, including the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth, to alleviate the situation in Sri Lanka.
	Our No. 1 goal is the protection of civilian lives. Both sides must do the right thing by those they claim they are fighting for. We will be unstinting in our efforts to press the Sri Lankans to ensure that they meet their obligations under international law. Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister with responsibility for Asia, will meet the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister next week to continue this effort. We will not waver until the lives of the innocent are no longer under threat and lasting peace has been brought to this troubled country.

Keith Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on introducing this short debate. I also want to congratulate all members of the Government on the efforts that they have made over the past few months in a very difficult situation. All Members of the House cannot but be moved by the despair of the British Tamil community, highlighted by the demonstration outside Parliament, over what is happening to their friends and relatives.
	This is the third time that this subject has been debated in the past two or three months. We had a debate on 5 February and another on 24 March, and powerful speeches were made by hon. Members from all parties. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak for half an hour, reiterating all the points that have been made. I merely want to try to emphasise two or three points, tying togetheras I see itthe problems of achieving an immediate ceasefire and a somewhat longer-term solution. This situation has been bedevilled on both sides by extremists who have used terror and counter-terror, with truces declared and broken, to further their particular political interests. That has happened recently with both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE.
	Enormous efforts have been made by individual Governments and by the international community to attempt to force both sides to come to a ceasefire. At different stages, neither side has found it in their interests to do so. That is not to say that the efforts that have been made have been nugatory and should not have been attempted. An important, powerful point concerns the way in which this House, on the whole, has spoken with one voice. That has had an impactalthough not a particularly great oneon the Sri Lankan Government. Apart from anything else, I think that they thought that they had had a more sophisticated public relations campaign over the past few months.
	The immediate problem is not only to achieve a ceasefire but to bring in humanitarian aid to those people who are now concentrated in camps to which there is limited access. There are tens of thousands of them and I think that the fear of many outside observers is that the Sri Lankan Government intend to weed out people from those camps whom they regard as terrorists. It is very important that we not only have international observers there but members of the media, including members of the media in Sri Lanka.
	Of course, a ceasefire is also required to prevent the final overrun of the last bit of territory held by the LTTE, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians are suffering from both sides. The Sri Lankan Government are still using aerial weapons, artillery and air strikes. We know that from the UN representative. Equally, as the former Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), pointed out, the LTTE armed wing is made up of a particularly vicious and nasty bunch of people. They have forcibly put young people into their fighting groups and used civilians as screens. We should not absolve ourselves from that.
	I am not trying to be negative, but I do not genuinely believe that the Sri Lankan Government will agree to a ceasefire. I think that they believe that they are so close to achieving a military victory that they will do anything to stop one. I do not think that there is anything that the international community or the British Government can do to force them not to achieve that military victory, as the Sri Lankan Government see it. That is not to say that I do not think that we should shout from the rooftops about what they are doing. The problem that they face, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, is that that military victory will be pyrrhic. They will achieve a military victory but they will immediately face the problem of dealing with the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. They will probably then come under enormous pressure and will feel that they have to give in to international observers and the United Nations. We should be thinking now about what pressure we can bring at that point and what we want to demand of the Sri Lankan Government.
	As other hon. Members have said, in every conflict that we can think of, this kind of military victory will result in the surviving members of the LTTE carrying out terrorist acts, not only in Sri Lanka but worldwide, on a scale the likes of which the Sri Lankan Government have not yet seen. So what I urge colleagues to think about is that we continue to maintain the pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, through the sort of action that the Foreign Secretary has been carrying out. We must also recognise that the Sri Lankan Government are incredibly sensitive and touchy about what they believe is white, colonial interference in their internal affairs. For example, the appointment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) as a special envoy was effectively negated by them. In addition, they have refused permission for the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, to enter Sri Lanka, for reasons that seem very much based on interferencein other words, the Sri Lankan Government believe that they are defending their right.
	We all believe that that is stupid and nugatory, but I suspect that we will have a very limited window of opportunity to bring real pressure to bear on the Sri Lankan Government after they have achieved their so-called military victory. That is becausethis is my final pointthe pressure will be off them then, with the international media moving on to some other horror story elsewhere in the world. The British Tamil community, quite rightly, will expect more of us, but it is at that point that the British Government will really have to engage with the Sri Lankan Government.
	Ironically, I think that the Sri Lankan Government will be at their weakest then. In wishing to achieve a military victory they have ignored all the negative aspects, such as the fact that they are in serious financial difficulties, and that may be what allows us to exert some pressure.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend he is making a very prescient and powerful speech. Does he agree that, in the similar conflicts that took place in South Africa and Rwanda, one of the important parts of the peace process was the establishment of some form of truth and reconciliation committee? That worked very well in South Africa, and also in Rwanda, where the Gacaca court system was used for that purpose. The result has been that people caught up in the conflict have been brought back into the democratic, peaceful process.

Keith Simpson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not trying to be a Jonah, but I believe, sadly, that there will be a lot more violence, and a lot more innocent people killed, before we reach that stage. I think that we are in for a long haul.
	I congratulate the Government and those of our colleagues who have worked so hard on the matter. We need to keep up the pressure on the Sri Lankan Government through the spotlight of media attention, but we must also think about what will happen when they declare their pyrrhic military victory, because the Tamils are not going to go away.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches comes into operation now. Bearing in mind the numbers of colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate, and if everyone is to be heard, I hope that speeches will not be too much extended by interventions.

Joan Ryan: It is relevant to remind ourselves that we are talking about up to 6,500 people killed since January. The fact that even official accounts now put the number above 5,000 gives us a little perspective.
	I worry when I hear talk about more violence. There may well be, but it is very important that we stand here and say that there must not be. I also worry that, although none of us approves of what is happening, we almost seem to be saying, We can't stop the Sri Lankan Government. This is internal to that country, so they reject everything that we say, the envoys that we send, and even the Swedish Foreign Minister. That's not fine, but there's nothing we can do about it.
	I do not accept that there is nothing we can do about what is happening in Sri Lanka. I am very relieved that our Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka, and I pay tribute to him for making the trip at this crucial point in time. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that this is an important point in time. If Sri Lanka is on the verge of a bloodbath, there could not be a more important time for our Foreign Secretary to be there, making it absolutely clear that what is happening is not acceptable.
	Sri Lanka must move to a permanent ceasefire. We attach no preconditions to the negotiations that must follow; it is not for us to do so. However, it is right that we and the international community call for an immediate, permanent ceasefire, and for negotiations to startnegotiations involving all parts of the community in Sri Lanka, as has been said. I am pleased that our Prime Minister was the first international Government leader to call for a ceasefire. That is important leadership, and many others need to follow suit. I have no doubt that that was critical to ensuring that India made clear its view that a ceasefire was required. Our Government have made huge moves that have had a huge impact, but we are still not where we need to be.
	A lot has been said about the UN, and I, too, have made it clear that there should be a UN Security Council resolution. Through all the debates, I think that we have all come to understand that China and Russia are obstructing international efforts to reach agreement. We are well past the point at which it could be said to be unhelpful to identify where the problem comes from, in terms of ensuring that the international community can act. To go back to my first point, if we are not to say, Well, there's nothing that we can do; Governments get to do these things in their own country, and are instead to say, This is a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe, and it is completely and utterly wrong, we have to act through the UN. Therefore, it is right that we should identify where the problem is.
	China and Russia are obstructing international efforts to reach agreement, but where the UN Security Council fails to act to maintain international peace and security, a provision exists to overcome disagreement among its five permanent members, namely the Uniting for Peace resolution. It enables an emergency special session of the General Assembly to be called for by a procedural resolution of the Security Council, which, unlike substantive resolutions, cannot be vetoed by any of the five permanent members. I am not an expert on the UN, and I have had to do a bit of research to discover those technicalities and means of progressing things there, but the Uniting for Peace resolution seems to offer a way forward, if it is not possible to get the kind of resolution for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been calling.

David Burrowes: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the stand that she is taking on behalf of the members of the Tamil community who are spread across the borough of Enfield. The Under-Secretary of State said that she would not want the Government to be in a worse position as a result of a failed UN Security Council resolution. Can the right hon. Lady think of a worse position than the one that the Tamil community are in, as they face slaughter?

Joan Ryan: That is an important point to take on board, but we have to consider whether a failed UN Security Council resolution would be interpreted by the Government of Sri Lanka as a form of approval of their behaviour. Equally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: how could things be much worse for the Tamil community? That is why I think that, however much blocking there is at the UN, it is time to find a mechanism to open up the issue there. It is time to point to those permanent members of the Security Council that are, through their behaviour, allowing the human rights catastrophe to happen. They are preventing the UN from fulfilling its role, remit, and international obligations, and so are preventing the rest of us members who are party to those obligations from fulfilling ours. If the Uniting for Peace resolution offers a way forward, I urge the Minister to look at it. Although we have problems with two permanent members of the Security Council, there are many others to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and other hon. Members have spoken in recent days and weeks. Those countries support our disapproval of what is happening in Sri Lanka and are trying to force the Sri Lankan Government to reach an immediate ceasefire. It undermines the Secretary-General's position if his call for a ceasefire is completely ignored, if not brushed aside. I therefore hope that that will be looked at.
	I should like to make a point about the application for a loan from the International Monetary Fund. The Sri Lankan Government, as we have heard, has applied for an emergency support loan from the IMF of $1.9 billion, and they appear to believe that they should be able to receive that without any conditions. To agree to an IMF loan to a Government who have perpetrated gross violations of humanitarian and human rights law would be a breach of the UK's international obligations, so that is another avenue through which our Government can bring pressure to bear on the Sri Lankan Government. We should provide aid, but it is completely wrong to do so against the backdrop of a Government who have spent 25 per cent. of their gross domestic product on arms. They are not at war with anybodythey are, however, at war in their own countryand have gone to the IMF for a loan. That is not what an IMF loan is supposed to be about, and I hope that we will do all that we can to stop that being made available.
	To return to the point that I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, there is no military solution. The Sri Lankan Government may think that they are going to achieve military success, but it will not be a victory. No Government can achieve military victory over their own people, and all the people of Sri Lanka deserve a settlement that will be just and lasting and that gives everyone in that country the rights that they deserve as citizens of that country. The Sri Lankan Government should not dismiss out of hand all the calls for a ceasefire and all the offers of a ceasefire. I accept that they and others have reservations about dealing with everyone in peace negotiations. I accept, too, that there has been violence on both sides. As I have said, no one in the Chamber condones violence or fighting: we want an immediate and permanent ceasefire; we want peace; and we want negotiations. We set no preconditionswe have no right to do sobut it is not unreasonable to make those demands.
	One might ask whether we have any right to make demands of another Government. I believe that we do when human rights are under threat and a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding before our eyes. Those are exactly the circumstances in which we have the right to make those demands. We make them here as a Parliament representing hundreds of thousands of British citizens who are Tamil people desperately concerned about their families and friends. We have that right as members of the UN. We must see that ceasefire, and we need it now. That is what the Foreign Secretary has called for again today, and I wholly support his making that visit and that call.

Susan Kramer: I want to acknowledge in particular the importance of the Tamil community in making sure that the international community finally gives a high priority to the suffering of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
	Last week, I was privileged to go with three members of the Tamil community to Strasbourg to meet the EU External Relations Commissioner, Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner. I was joined by Members of the European Parliament, and we were all acting in a cross-party capacity, rather than representing one particular party. It was evident from that conversation that, at that time, the issue was not a priority on the agenda of the meeting of Foreign Ministers that was to take place on Monday. We have now progressed so far that our Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister are in Sri Lanka tackling the problem directly. I congratulate the British, French and Czech Governments on making sure that the subject moved so rapidly up the agenda and gained the priority that it deserved. I also congratulate those young Tamils, whose eloquence made a significant difference on that day. The Tamil community fired up the political world not only here, but in other European capitals. That has been extraordinary, and we should recognise the role that they played.
	I turn briefly to the welfare camps; I am trying not to use the full amount of time that I have been allotted. I talked yesterday with some of the humanitarian agencies, which obviously have long-standing contacts in Sri Lanka. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have quoted the numbers said to be going to the welfare camps. The report back is that the situation is horrendous. The Sri Lankan Government have long been in denial that many civilians were involved. Consequently, there is a shortage of absolutely everything and the system is completely overstretched, creating a present and imminent humanitarian crisis.
	The second set of issues to which the humanitarian agencies tried to draw my attention is that rumours are rife that people going to the camps are disappearing young men are disappearing, presumably thought to be possible members of the LTTE who have taken off their uniform; and young women are disappearing, and the rumour is that they are providing, shall I say, comfort services. Whether that is true or not, the issue will enflame the Tamil people in both Sri Lanka and the diaspora, and it underscores the importance of stressing to the British Government and others that the UN and the ICRC must become responsible for supervising all stages of the screening process when people enter and leave the camps. That must be documented and there must be the appropriate database. If not, rumour will be so out of control that it will be very difficult to secure any benefits when there is some degree of ceasefire.

Barry Gardiner: I agree entirely with the powerful point that the hon. Lady is making. She will know that there is a history of the United Nations High Representative on human rights being denied access in the pursuit of investigations of wholesale abuses and mass graves that have been found over the past decade in Sri Lanka as a result of atrocities perpetrated by the Sri Lankan army. The point that she makes about the rumours that are rife lends credence to all that has gone before, and indicates that it is not safe for civilians who are still within the zone to hand themselves over to the Sri Lankan forces and to go into the camps. That presents a severe humanitarian problem, on which we must force the Sri Lankan Government to act by allowing transparency in what is going on in those camps.

Susan Kramer: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about transparency. It must be made clear to the Sri Lankan Government that there is no loss of face in bringing in the international community. That is not a presumption of guilt. It is part of the structure for creating peace out of conflict.
	With reference to the camps, it is crucial that people are resettled as quickly as possible. One number we have not heard today is that of the more than 300,000 displaced people who are in camps as a result of the conflict prior to 2002people who have not been able to return home because of the high-security camps established in the east of the country. That cannot be repeated in the valley, or we will find ourselves with a long-term and constantly festering problem in Sri Lanka. That will take international community pressure to achieveoffers of international help for demining are a good exampleas well as the provision of resources. Humanitarian organisations tell me that the scale of the problem is bigger than that of the tsunami in Sri Lankathe number of families involved and the need for shelter, for livelihood support, for infrastructure reconstruction and for dealing with trauma post-crisis.

Andrew Love: Not long after 2002, when the ceasefire was implemented and things began to go somewhat off the rails, the international community came together and offered a large sum of money on the basis that a ceasefire and a peace process could begin and be completed. Is that something that the international community could consider to get things moving in Sri Lanka?

Susan Kramer: I agree that money must come with conditions and money will be needed. Again, I do not consider that to be some violation of the dignity of any Government. There must be freedom of access and freedom of movement, and those standards of humanitarian law and international law have to be restored.
	It is evident in this crisis that the suffering will have been for no point at all if it does not lead to a permanent solution in Sri Lanka. That means that the conversations must begin as immediately as possible on the underlying grievances. As was said earlier, that applies as much to the Muslim community as it does to the Tamil communityto all minority communities in Sri Lanka. There has been a move by the Sri Lankan Government towards a Sinhala Buddhist bias, which has had the effect of denying other communities their proper rights and role: equal opportunity, freedom of language and freedom of religion. Only if the structure is put in place to achieve a pluralistic society will these long-standing communitiesthe Tamil community has been for centuries a kingdom on the lands of Sri Lankahave the kind of resolution that is needed and, as others have said, we will be able to prevent the development of the ongoing sense of terror that comes of grievances that are not addressed either by the home Government or by the international community.

Siobhain McDonagh: I am 49 years of age, I have been an elected politician for 27 years and my political and personal lives tell me that when someone is bullied, they must stand up and shout, no matter what minority they are part of and no matter what the chances of success might be.
	What disappointed me about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was that it undermined and belied the bravery that our Foreign Secretary is showing by visiting Sri Lanka and making a stand when other people and organisations around the world will not. He is making a stand when other diplomatshis advisers in the Foreign Officetell him not to go. Whatever the outcome of his visit, he will always have my support for his decision to break the logjam in every international organisation that is not prepared to stand up and do something.
	I could paper my walls with the letters that I have had saying, We don't like to stand up. We like to do things under the radar. That is not the way to deal with the Sri Lankan Government. We all know that diplomacy will not shift the Sri Lankan Government. Only the loud opprobrium of the world, in whatever way it can happen, will do that. Brave people can achieve great things. Organisations that decide to turn away, not look, not see and be mealy-mouthed, will not save one life.
	My Easter recess was spent out on Parliament square with a group of people who showed great bravery and great desperation. They did things with which I sometimes did not agree, but their motivations are first class and their attempt to bring this matter to the world's attention has been incredibly successful. Despite the little media coverage over the past few weeks, it is 100 per cent. more than before and 100 per cent. more than all of us have managed to achieve. I applaud the protestors on their success, but now it is our time for us to make our stand. It may not be successful and we may fail, but we have to try, because we all know that, when this is all over, we will see more dead, injured and displaced people than we currently understand. It should not happen on our watch. Our responsibility is to do something, to stand up and to be brave.

Lee Scott: I join others in paying tribute to our Prime Minister, who has met the all-party group on Sri Lanka on two occasions, and to the Foreign Secretary, who met the all-party group and a packed room of Tamils; I do so because of the situation's severity. This is our third debate in the Chamber, there have been numerous debates in Westminster Hall and many words have been spoken by all parties. We all want a ceasefire, an end to the killing of innocent people, humanitarian aid, non-governmental organisations to be allowed in and peace for all in Sri Lanka.
	The truth is, however, that we have not got anywhere. There is a reason for the protests in Parliament square, and I, like the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who spoke before me, went over there during the Easter recess to meet the protestors. They have my admiration for the dignified way in which they have tried to conduct themselves. There have been times when I have not agreed with everything that has transpired, but they have been trying out of desperation, because they do not know what else to do. They feel let down, which is why my constituents in Ilford, North come to me and say that they are worried about whether their relatives are alive or dead, and whether they are being humiliated. We hear reports, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) said, and I do not know what is true, but I have seen video evidence that seems to show that atrocities are taking place daily.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden rightly said that we have to be the voice. We have to be the voice of the people who elected us, and whose relatives are losing their lives daily and being herded around like cattle. If we cannot be that voice, we should all hang our heads in shame, because we betray the people whom we are here to represent. I also agree with the hon. Lady that whether we succeed is not in our gift; the Sri Lankan Government will not listen to us if we say, We want a ceasefire, because they do not seem to care what any of us say. The minute that we open our mouths and say anything that they do not like, they portray us all, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, as backing terrorists. But I say once again, as I have said in previous debates, that I do not support terrorism from any side in any shape or form. I support innocent people trying to live their lives with dignity.
	The time has come for us to continue to speak out for people who are not able to voice their concerns, because they are not being listened to. If the Sri Lankan Government will not listenwhether it be to the United Nations, the European Union or the Commonwealthand introduce a ceasefire, the time will have come for their suspension from the Commonwealth. A veto may not succeed in the United Nations, because someone may stop it, but at least it will exist. Will it make the situation worse? Will the Sri Lankan Government say that it gives them a mandate? They do not have a mandate to do anything; no one has a mandate to kill innocent people.
	We cannot stand by and allow that to happen, so together across all parties we are fighting to stop it. Let us continue that fight, and let us help the people across the road, and the people in Sri Lanka who are being killed every day. If we do not, we should bow our heads in shame, because we will have let them down.

Des Browne: I think that everybody in this House feels the weight of the nature and scale of the suffering in Sri Lanka and believes that it has been endured for far too long.
	When making my contribution, I will observe the time constraints set down by the Chair. I heard what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, and I do not intend to repeat all the statistics that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) ably rehearsed to illustrate the scale of the challenge that faces us.
	Members of Parliament across the Chamber have rightly paid credit to other Members for their contribution to this growing campaign, which has made some contribution to where we are today, although there is still a long journey to be travelled before we can be satisfied with what any of us have achieved. I want to pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who, since the middle of February, when I agreed to be the Prime Minister's special envoy to Sri Lanka, have constantly been at my ear doing just what they have done todayspeaking out passionately, eloquently and with a great degree of humanity about this issue, but at the same time ingeniously trying to find ways in which the whole process move towards the sort of conclusion that we all desire.
	It is because we all feel the weight of responsibility in the current situation that I agreed to the Prime Minister's request to act as the special envoy to Sri Lanka. In doing so, I followed in the distinguished and capable footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was appointed special envoy to Sri Lanka at the request of the Sri Lankan Government in 2006. He was entirely the right person to be appointed, because he wasI hope that he does not mind my describing him in this waya workhorse in the Northern Ireland peace process and did a lot of the work for the Government and for others that people did not see. He was welcomed in Sri Lanka by those on both sides of the conflict; his presence there was celebrated. He spelled out in meetingsI have read the recordsthe steps that needed to be taken for a lasting peace and for the resolution of this conflict, which has continued for far too long.
	The lessons learned by those of us who have been involved in trying to resolve conflicts not only in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere, still apply.

Andrew Love: rose

Des Browne: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I do not intend to use the whole of my 10 minutes and will therefore not take any interventions.
	All hon. Members know from our experience of debates, particularly on Northern Ireland, exactly what we need to do to create an inclusive peace process that has no preconditions attached to it, respects the rights and aspirations of all parties in a diverse community, and leads to a lasting peace. I had no illusions about my ability to resolve decades of conflict, but I wanted to make a small contribution in that context on the island of Sri Lanka. I have felt frustrated by my inability to do that thus far, but I have never given up on the opportunity to do so at some stage, if I stick at it.
	Now there is a greater challengea humanitarian crisis and a situation that can be resolved only by a ceasefire and agreement to the conditions that I understand the Sri Lankan Government have agreed with John Holmes, Walter Kaelin and all those who have intervened with them and have been accepted on the island to discuss the matters that Members have raised about international supervision, conduct, and care of the people who come out of the conflict zone.
	If hon. Members present, and those who hear this speech otherwise, will forgive me, I do not intend to rehearse all the steps that need to be taken, because I agree with what everybody has said. I want to say that the Sri Lankan Government have invited me to go to Sri Lanka with an all-party group of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. Those who have agreed to come with me are distinguished, serious and well-qualified Members of this House; I will not identify them because I have not agreed with them that I can do so. In any event, the applications for visas are with the Sri Lankan Government as I speak, and I want to ensure that they are processed and that we get to go.
	I close by saying that I intend to go with that group to Sri Lanka to deliver on behalf of the House the message that it agrees today. I agreed to be the Prime Minister's special envoy to work with and for the Government but not be of the Government, but I am a Member of this House. For that reason, I hope that the parties' Front-Bench teams can get together and discuss what we are debating today, and give us a message that we can take to Sri Lanka that does not have behind it the division implied by a vote in this House. It will be much better if we speak with one voice, which we do. In five or 10-minute speeches one Member might give slightly different emphasis from another, and connections with people in our constituencies or elsewhere might rightly cause us to deliver certain messages, but we all agree about this.
	We should speak with one voice and empower the small group of people from all parties who have bravely and readily agreed to come with me next week to deliver a very strong message. In that way, perhaps we can be one institution that says to the Sri Lankan Government and the people in the conflict, This killing must stop, and there are very simple steps that can be taken to allow all of you to emerge from this with dignity and live in peace.

Simon Hughes: I thank the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) for his contribution, for the efforts that he has already made, for working with colleagues in all parts of Parliament and for facilitating some of the Tamil community going to speak directly to people of influence in the European Union, the American State Department and Administration and, almost certainly within two days, the United Nations. They are very grateful, and his efforts are much appreciated.
	Unlike some colleagues, although not others, I do not come to this matter because of a great constituency obligation, as I have almost no Tamil constituents. I come to it because when I was elected 25 years ago, I was alert to the fact that there was a fundamental constitutional problem in Sri Lanka that, unless it was resolved politically, could lead to the sort of crisis that we are in. When it became independent, the majority community built in its Sinhala Buddhist majority constitutionally. It did not accept that Sri Lanka should be a pluralist country of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Burghers, Tamils and Sinhala. It did not understand that India is the great country that it is because it had understood that point just over the water, and because it is a secular state where people can rise to the highest office irrespective of their religion and where there is devolution to its various states. I saw that there was a potential problem, and those of us who have been in the House together for those 25 years know that history has borne that out.
	We know that there have been further disasters since then, such as the tsunami. We know that the Sri Lankan Government have gradually committed more of their budget, which they need for schools, education and other things, to defence and internal securityI believe that it is currently about 20 per cent. It became obvious over the past few years that the situation would become worse when, as colleagues have said, Louise Arbour of the United Nations and the international press were asked to leave. It became obvious when almost all the international relief agencies were asked to leave, with only the International Committee of the Red Cross and Caritas having any significant presence in the north, and when the editor of the  Sunday Leader was assassinated and nobody was brought to book. Nobody has been brought to book for a succession of assassinations. The result was becoming more obvious.
	As friends in all parts of the House have said, there is now a crisis in Sri Lankaa catastrophe before our eyes in a fantastically talented, beautiful, cultured place. However, it is a crisis also for the international political system. The pleas of the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for whom I have great respect, those of friends in the Conservative party, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and all my colleagues and those of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in New York reflect the fact that the systems have not moved in time to deliver the outcome. That is not good enough. The world cannot go on letting any Government, let alone the Government of a so-called democracy and a country that is part of the Commonwealth, behave in such a way, so alienating and suppressing their minority that they build up hostility potentially for generations.
	Like others, I have spent heart-aching moments across the road in the past three and a half weeks since 6 April. I have been over the road every day bar two, and I was in the United States with three young British Tamils on one of those. I have in my hand a letter written by the students who came on to the streets as a result of what was happening in Sri Lanka. They were not organised; they were not a group that formed part of the existing structure of the Tamil community. The young people came on to the streets because they could not stand it any more. They made five simple requests. I shall repeat them because they are so simple, yet so fundamental.
	The letter is dated 13 April. It states:
	Dear HM's Government and its citizens,
	As students, we request that you fulfil our and
	they name the young man who remains on hunger strike in Parliament square today
	Subramanian Parameswaran's requests, which are:
	1. An immediate and permanent ceasefire by government troops, the LTTE and any others engaged in military action in Sri Lanka.
	2. Immediate and continuing access to all parts of Sri Lanka by representatives of the United Nations or any organisation chosen by them before and after the ceasefire.
	3. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian aid agencies.
	4. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by independent representatives of the international press.
	5. An opportunity for all the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka freely to express their opinion about their future in a referendum which would take place with independent international observers.
	Those are not the pleas of irrational and unreasonable people. When I spoke to the young people and their friends, they added to their absolute prioritythe ceasefireimmediate access so that the human rights of all are protected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) and others said.
	I have spoken to humanitarian workers who have been asked to leave the north. They said that the whole of the north is effectively a detention camp. I have an e-mail, written on 24 April, from one of the bishops of the Church in the north. It simply states:
	The suffering and hardship that the... 30,000 IDPs are undergoing after arriving in Vavuniya are beyond human expression.
	I want to request specific things that add to but do not dissent from the unanimous and strong views that have been expressed here. It is important to urge the UN to continue to do morelet me reinforce the voices that have called for that. The UN must not only hear reports, but take a view. It has a right to intervene to protect minorities around the world, and it must do that.
	The EU has important levers. It has been asked whether it can help with financial support through the GSPgeneralised system of preferencesplus, which is a method of helping with textile concessions to the garment industry. We must not let the EU help Sri Lanka if Sri Lanka does not participate properly in the international community.

Andrew Love: rose

Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to allow others time to speak.
	We are grateful to the secretary-general of the Commonwealth for seeing us. The Commonwealth must convene its ministerial action group and make it clear that Sri Lanka must uphold human rights. The Commonwealth says that its members must do that, and it must effect that. It is as nothing if it does not take a stand at such moments of crisis.
	As the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, India and the United StatesI was privileged to be in the State Department and with White House officials last weekare probably the two countries that are most able to exercise influence. We pray that they take every opportunity to use their influence now, not only to get the ceasefire, but the protection, the human rights observation and the international relief that is needed.
	It would be completely unacceptable if the International Monetary Fund loan was granted in the present circumstances. I am not worried about the technicalities of the rules, but to give 1.9 billion to Sri Lanka in these circumstances would be completely unacceptable, and other non-emergency funding must not go there either.
	I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. The Americans are clear, as we must be, that anybody who has committed war crimes should expect to be brought to trial and treated in a way that gives justice to all. The evidence is thereI have seen itthat heavy armaments have been shelling in the civilian zone and it will prove that the Sri Lankan Government, as well as others, are guilty of those sorts of crimes.
	There will need to be peace and a political process in the future, and it will need to recognise the Tamil people's claim to self-government. In the end, nothing else will be acceptable. However, just as people in this country, in Canada and in the Lebanon have understood these issues, so must Sri Lanka understand them too.
	Unless we respond effectively now, the international community of young people and the Tamils around the world, who include some of the brightest and best in this country, will not just have found us wanting in their hour of need; they will have found the international community failing. Unless we show that politics can work, we will be failing them and failing politics.

John Battle: I welcome this debate and would like to say a word of thanks to the Liberal Democrats for choosing this topic this afternoon. After 26 years and perhaps more than 70,000 dead400 a weekwe all have some responsibility both for not raising the profile of the issue much earlier and more often and for not pressing for action.
	I speak not as a person who has many Tamil families in their constituency; rather, I come to this debate from the viewpoint of international development, human rights and campaigning for basic justice and peace. We have failed to raise the issue's international profile. As well as passing resolutions at the UN, we ought to be pressing the UN on behalf of the international community to get in there.
	I want to make two points about taking action. One is to do with humanitarian aid and assistance, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) mentioned, and the other is about the media. Not that long ago in this Chamber we discussed the crisis in Burma. What did we all do, in all parts of the House? We pressed for international action to get humanitarian aid to Burma, despite the Burmese authorities saying no, and it happenedit happened to a limited extent, but it did happen. The press are not there, but the aid got through.
	We have to take the crisis seriously as a humanitarian crisis. We have seen reports since January 2008, when the ceasefire collapsed. We have seen violence and conflict and the death and immiseration of thousands, and still too many people are affected. The rumour is that 100,000 people are still trapped in the conflict zone, cluttered in makeshift shelters and completely exposed to the crossfire right now. That is a humanitarian crisis. We should not wait for the politics to be sorted out. Instead, we need the UN to get in there and, in a sense, interfere and stop what is happening by ensuring that civilians are protected, because that is what we and the UN should be about.
	The Sri Lankan army moved on the northern towns that were controlled by the Tamil Tigers, but the rumours are that some 50,000 civilians are still trapped there. When the Sri Lankan army moved into Mullaitivu, 250,000 civilians were driven out into the neighbouring countryside. Hundreds were killed, but it is reported that those people are still desperate, without any resources whatever. That is precisely the sort of situation that the humanitarian agencies of the UN ought to deal with, by getting in there, interfering and mixing it to ensure that those people are properly protected.
	More worryingly, the International Committee of the Red Cross has reported that 250,000 civilians have received no humanitarian aid at all since 29 January. Still no safe corridors have been properly negotiated for those civilians to be evacuated. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the Sri Lankan Government claim that they are setting up so-called welfare villages for internally displaced persons, but they are not monitored and there are fears that they will be more like Government detention centres than humanitarian aid camps. Practical support and help is therefore needed in those areas. It is reported that there are 180,000 Tamils in or waiting to enter the camps for internally displaced persons, many of whom are women and children and many of whom are maimed and damaged. They are victims of shelling and warfare and they need humanitarian assistance in the form of practical medical help and support, and food and water, now.
	Yesterday, it was reported that a British surgeon working for Mdecins sans Frontires said that 320 people had turned up at a hospital with 40 places. The health systems are being overwhelmed by the damage caused by this conflict. As a result, the victims of land mines, shells and shrapnel are turning up at hospitals and not getting any assistance whatever.

Keith Vaz: As has been mentioned, when the United Nations seeks to intervene in a humanitarian waythe visit of Sir John Holmes is an exampleall it gets is condemnation from the Sri Lankan Government. That is why we must have a resolution from the UN, to give the international community the authority to act. What this Government have done is superb, but we need the UN's imprint if we want the Sri Lankan Government to listen.

John Battle: I completely agree; this is not an either/or. Of course, if any action is to be taken by the UN, resolutions need to be passed. It is time for the international community to hold hands and to say that this is a humanitarian crisis. We might not be able to sort the politics out tomorrow, but we need to act now because of the humanitarian issues. That means that, in practice, there needs to be unrestricted access for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Such aid was delivered in Burma, and in East Timor during the conflict some years ago, as a result of the UN's arranging for ships to be parked off the coast or near the ports. I made suggestions about that in the House at the time. That could happen in Sri Lanka now.
	I welcome the Government's actions, and the supplying of some 5,000 tents and of provisions directly to internally displaced persons through the UNHCR, as well as the extra 2.5 million that is going in through the international agencies, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) says, we must press for others in the international community to join in that activity, so that real international pressure can be brought to bear on humanitarian grounds. The Government of Sri Lanka must be put under intense international pressure to allow the UN to help with the evacuation and support of civilians now. That includes the setting up and running of the necessary provisions for internally displaced persons by the international community. That happens in every other conflict in the world, and it should be possible for it to happen now without insulting anyone's political kudos.
	My second point is about the media. The Liberal Democrat motion draws attention to the role of the media, and I slightly regret that the amendment does not do so. Perhaps that was just an oversight. The motion states that
	access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media throughout the conflict zone.
	I am usually incredibly critical of the way the media carry on, but in conflicts the courage of the international media can sometimes help to defuse the conflict and bring about a ceasefire faster because of what they report. I also think that the media should have access to all internally displaced persons and to the camps that have been set up to look after them.
	The Government's amendment to the motion accepts the need to
	persuade the government of Sri Lanka to allow international oversight of all internally displaced persons.
	It also rightly refers to the need for
	a transparent registration process and improved conditions within the camps with better access to food, water and medical facilities
	and urges
	the government of Sri Lanka to allow freedom of movement in and out of the camps
	which we are not seeing in the so-called villages at the moment
	so that families separated by the conflict can be reunited.
	I hope that the Foreign Secretary, who is visiting Sri Lanka, will bring pressure to bear in relation not only to humanitarian aid but to media access throughout the system. Those two provisions should go together. I would also say to the media that, if and when they get in, they should not just go there for a day and report the crisis of the day. They should remain there to follow the process through, and to show that those who have become sad victims of this crisis through no fault of their own are being properly protected and looked after.
	Of course we all need to work together and to push for a process of political reconciliation and lasting peace and justice, but I draw attentionthe hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to thisto the International Crisis Group. It suggested that the international reconstruction and development assistance, which could include the International Monetary Fund loan that Sri Lanka has applied for, should have conditions attached and that those conditions for development aid IMF loans should be related to the Colombo Government's providing a basic level of human security, ending the impunity in relation to human rights violations and introducing an empowering process of devolution that includes provincial councils as part of a genuine democratic political transformation.
	Yes, Sri Lanka is 75 per cent. Sinhalese, 18 per cent. Tamil and 7 per cent. Muslim, but if there is to be some settlement, all those parties must be included or there will be no future and no way forward. That is an agenda that international development assistance can help with. We must ensure that there is humanitarian assistance nowtents, yes, but also food, water aid and medical aidand we must work to get the media in there and stay in there.
	When we work together and look at the reconstruction work afterwards, perhaps that development of devolution, which should include the minorities, will consider some new politics that might not be unique to Sri Lanka and might open up a political agenda that allows a proper political conversation with Sri Lanka to take place.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, which I hope will have an impact on the terrible humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in north-east Sri Lanka among hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians at this very moment.
	Hon. Members from the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, which I chair, have already made excellent contributions, but I want to convey to the House the message that the all-party group has been giving for many months to the Government of Sri Lanka, the UK Government and the international community. I congratulate everyone who has contributed and supported the groupnot only today, but in the pastand had meetings with the Tamil community and institutions all over Britain, in the European Union and in the United Nations. I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned on taking the initiative and winning the confidence of the community.
	With more than 100,000 Tamil civilians still within the conflict zone, it is vital that an urgent, immediate and permanent ceasefire is established. More than 6,500 innocent civilians have been killed in the last three months, according to the United Nationsmore than in the Gaza conflict. The Government of Sri Lanka also announced that they were stopping attacks with aircraft, artillery and heavy weapons, but reports today indicate that those attacks are still ongoing and innocent civilians are continuing to be killed.
	As has been said, we stand accused. We receive e-mail messages and letters accusing us of being Indian Tigers, black Tigers, white Tigers

Keith Vaz: Brown Tigers.

Virendra Sharma: My right hon. Friend tells me that there are references to brown Tigers as well. That is the accusation, but we should look at the role of communities here and the Tamil community in general. On 11 April, we had more than 150,000 people marching in London, without any violent incident. Peaceful marches have taken place. Only last week, we held a meeting in my constituency, which was attended by more than 300 people. I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to address the meeting, at which representatives of all the communitiesthe Indian community, the Pakistani community, the Bangladeshi communitywere present. Everybody was talking about a peaceful solution to the problem in that region.

Keith Vaz: The Foreign Secretary is in Colombo, and the House is unitedI have not heard a single speech against what the Government are doing with the support of Opposition parties. It would send out the best message if the House did not divide on a particular motion, and in a unified way supported one resolution for a ceasefire in Sri Lanka and proper humanitarian aid to the Tamil community.

Virendra Sharma: I thank my right hon. Friend. The only way is to send a clear message to the Sri Lankan Government and other institutions and countries supporting them that Great Britain's Government and parliamentarians are united on the ceasefire and giving humanitarian aid to that part of the world, and support to find a peaceful solution.
	The Government of Sri Lanka, by announcing this week that they will no longer carry out air strikes and artillery shelling, have admitted doing things that they had previously denied. The refusal to accept both the Prime Minister's special envoy and now the Swedish Foreign Minister shows that they have something to hide. Under the cover of fighting terrorism and rescuing civilians, they are showing a wanton disregard for their own civilian citizens and for United Nations and international humanitarian standards.
	The strongest international pressure should be put on the Government of Sri Lanka to call an immediate ceasefire, for humanitarian aid to be allowed into the conflict zone through the offices of the United Nations, and for a negotiated settlement to be worked out that meets all the legitimate demands of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka.
	I must raise one other point: some Members have said that the Indian Government have changed their mind a little late. Being of Indian background and understanding the politics of that region, I understand the comment, but the Indian Government's intentions were always clear when they demanded the ceasefire and asked for peaceful negotiations and asked for all parties to get around the table for discussion. I congratulate the Indian Government on taking the initiative, and sending their officers to negotiate with the Government of Sri Lanka for a peaceful solution. With the presence of our Foreign Secretary in Sri Lanka, and a message going from here, I hope that the whole community's support will bring a peaceful solution.

Adam Price: Briefly, as I know that other Members wish to speak, I want to add my voice and that of my party, Plaid CymruI am sure the Scottish National party would also want to do soto the strong, unified and unequivocal message that I am sure we will send from the House. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tamil people and want an end to the terrible atrocity that is being committed.
	We have a responsibility. Under our watch, the Sinhala and Tamil kingdoms were integrated, and the constitution was created that did not enshrine proper, equal rights for the Tamil people. It is right and proper that the House is shouldering its responsibility to the Tamil people, and saying that we will not stand by and allow such things to happen. It is important that we send that message.
	Although it is important that we speak clearly and condemn what is happening to the Tamil people, words are not enoughthey sometimes need to be backed up by action too. Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom will declare that we will not allow the International Monetary Fund loan to go forward at this time and that we will insist that the Commonwealth upholds the standards of democracy that are surely the definition of a commonwealth? If the Sri Lankan Government are not prepared to listen to the voices of the international community, clearly the Commonwealth will have to take appropriate steps and suspend their membership.
	Will the Minister also say that we will review the situation on arms export licences from the United Kingdom and the European Union, because we will certainly not allow any further deaths to occur, and that we will take all the steps necessary to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government realise their responsibility to their citizens and our fellow human beings, whom we wish to support in every way that we can?

Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am sorry that I was not able to be here from the beginning. I have been a Member of this House for 17 years, throughout which I have been involved in debates and discussions about Sri Lanka, largely because of the significant Tamil community in my constituency. I can think of times during those 17 years when we thought that there was hope that there might be a solution and a move towards a peaceful settlement. I can also think of times when we expressed lots of concern about extra-judicial killings and disappearances, but I simply cannot recall a worse situation than what is happening now.
	I see people in my constituency who have families, relatives and friends in Vanni, but who do not know what has happened to them, cannot get in touch with them and are afraid that they are dead. That is a dreadful situation for someone to be in, and nothing that I can say can offer any real comfort to those people. The people who are out there in Parliament square and the people who have been getting in touch with every one of us are making some clear and simple demandsthey are demands that have been echoed by almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. The demands relate to the need for a permanent ceasefire, not a temporary one; the need for humanitarian aid to get through; and the need for the people who are in the camps to be allowed to move and not be trapped in them.
	Of course, there is a longer-term political agenda about a political solution, but every day that passes, with this situation continuing, will make that longer-term political solution ever more difficult to achieve because of the mistrust that is being engendered by what is happening. No Government who claim to be democratically elected should be able to ignore those very clear and simple demands in the way that the Government of Sri Lanka have been doing. They have ignored what we have said, what has been said internationally and what has been said by member states of the United Nations and by the EU. We cannot accept that all that is being ignored, and we must get clear and strong messages across to that Government. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), who has been appointed as special envoy, will go there. I hope that strong messages will be delivered.
	I have a final point to make on delivering a strong message. I have looked at the Order Paper and examined the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the amendment tabled by the Government, and I do not see a great deal of difference between them. There are some small differences in emphasis, but I could happily vote for either one of them. What I do not want to happen is a Division on one or other of them. If we are serious about sending a clear message from this House of Commons to the Government of Sri Lanka, and everyone else there, about what we want to see happen, it will not help if we have a Division on one or other of these motions. That would be used to suggest that this House is not united in demanding a ceasefire, free access for international organisations to the area and to the camps for internally displaced persons, and freedom of movement for the population. I plead with Front-Bench spokesmen to come to an agreement on the motions, because frankly we could agree to either.

Andrew Love: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on tabling the motion. This is a timely and important debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in it. We have sung from the same hymn sheet, and it is important that we send the message that this Parliament is as one over what confronts us in Sri Lanka at the moment. An acute humanitarian disaster is unfolding.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I have been involved in Sri Lankan issues for some time. I have visited the island on several occasions. Since 1983, the country has experienced bitter divisions and conflicts, but I cannot remember a situation as grave as the one we face today. Many people have been able to escape from the conflict area, but while there is no outside verification, no human rights organisations, no humanitarian relief and no one to tell us what is going on, we can only assume the worst. Of course, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that shelling continues and the LTTE continues to hold people, some voluntarily and some against their will. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 70,000 innocent civilians are still trapped in the area. As the Parliament of a country on friendly terms with Sri Lanka, we must speak out as boldly as we can about the issue.
	I congratulate the House on being united on the issue. I also wish to pick up the point made that we would not send the right signal to Sri Lanka should we be forced into a Division at the end of the debate. It is critical that, having spoken with one voice, we act with one voice. So we must not divide tonight on motions that are very similar in many ways. I hope that that plea will be heeded. Speaking out is only part of the issue. We must also be seen to be doing things.
	Several things have been raised on which I wish to comment. First, I understand that there are reasons why the Commonwealth would suspend one of its members. That has been done in the past, but there have been voices suggesting that such action would not be appropriate at this point. However, in the past when there have been difficulties between the Commonwealth as an organisation and an individual member, a group of other Commonwealth countries with close connections to the offending party have sent a delegation to make it clear how the Commonwealth feels about the issue. I believe that that could be done on behalf of the Commonwealth, particularly if that group of countries were led by India, which has enormous influence in Sri Lanka.

Keith Vaz: I was present at a meeting with the Commonwealth secretary-general arranged by the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). It seems that Sri Lanka has put in a bid to host the Commonwealth summit in 2011. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally inappropriate for Sri Lanka to be asked to host that after all that it has done to its own people?

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question and agree wholeheartedly. We have to send a very clear signal from all sorts of directions, one of which is the Commonwealth. While this conflict continues and while the Commonwealth continues to stand out against the actions of the Sri Lankan Government there can be no place for honouring them with the ability to hold that conference.
	I think that there is a role for the Commonwealth. At this stage, that role might not involve suspending Sri Lanka from membership, but action must be taken and the Commonwealth definitely has a role to play.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the option of action through the European Union. Of course, the Sri Lankan Government are incredibly sensitive about the GSP plus process. I know that because on my last visit, and in subsequent discussions with the high commissioner and others, I learned that the rag trade, if I can call it that, is extremely important to Sri Lanka. Access to the European Union through the GSP process is critical to the future of the economy of Sri Lanka. GSP does not relate only to trade; it relates to human rights standards as well. They are set as a precondition before GSP plus can be granted. The Sri Lankan Government are sensitive to that issue and I think that we ought to think of using those provisions at this time.

Simon Hughes: I want to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point about international co-operation. I hope he agrees that the Sri Lankan Government need to accept that friendsother world countries and other Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, India and the UKhave huge experience of sorting out problems in multiracial, multi-ethnic communities. We all used people from outside to help with that. It is not a threat, but a mechanism. We must send a message that says, Do not be afraid of this. It is a way of resolving the problem that has dogged you since independence.

Andrew Love: We must send the message that we are friends of Sri Lanka but that we cannot stand back and watch as this crisis unfolds. We cannot do nothing. Yes, there is expertise within the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth, and that ought to be used. The hand of friendship is offered and we hope that the Sri Lankan Government will take it up.
	The UN must be seen to be doing more. It is not just a case of, Let's have these discussions behind closed doors. We have to say publicly, within the forums of the United Nations, that we as a Government and we as a Parliament stand out against what is happening in Sri Lanka and that we will do our utmost, publicly as well as privately, to stop it.
	My final point, which was raised earlier, is that ending the humanitarian crisis is only the first move. If we do not want to find ourselves in another humanitarian crisis two, three or five years down the road, as has happened before in Sri Lanka, we need a viable peace process. The first thing that we need is a ceasefire, and one now would enhance the prospect of a proper peace process. The process itself is incredibly important and I think that our experience in Northern Ireland has a great deal to offer on how that process should be carried out. Most importantly, the peace process must have international support. Britain, India, the United States and the United Nations must be entirely behind it, and should ensure that it encapsulates all the populations in Sri Lanka and all the different political trends.
	There are moderate Tamils as well as Tamils who support the LTTE: the opinion held by the Muslim community is very different from other views, and there is a range of political opinion even in the Sinhala community. All that has to be taken on board, but if we can bring those people together, there is a real prospect for peace.

Paul Burstow: May I start by thanking every right hon. and hon. Member who has contributed to this truly great debate? It has highlighted what I think is common cause across this Housethat there should be peace and justice in Sri Lanka for all the people of that troubled island. The debate has been about trying to make sure that we help facilitate our Government in their efforts to do everything that they can to make that a reality. That can happen only through international action of the sort described by so many hon. Members in their speeches this evening.
	Our purpose has been merely to bring the matter before the House today. We do not intend to seek a Division at the end of the debate, as we want to get the House to speak with one voice on this matter. That is why we drafted the motion as we did. We tried to set out the issues in plain language, in a motion that was direct and to the point and which addressed the concerns of the people of Sri Lanka. Those concerns are shared by many of our constituents, and they have represented them powerfully to us over many years, months and weeks, as the situation has worsened in that country.
	We need to make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a ceasefire is absolutely essential, and that it must happen now. We have to make it clear to the LTTE that it must not stand in the way of anyone seeking to escape from the absolute nightmare that people are currently living in. We must also emphasise that there can be no solution of a military nature to the conflict in Sri Lanka. In the end, military action simply sows the seeds of bitterness and ensures that there can be no reconciliation whatsoever in that country.
	The Sri Lankan Government may be able to win a war on the battlefields, but they will not be able to win in the end. Every shell fired, every bomb dropped and every rocket launched simply causes the last shreds of international support and goodwill that the Sri Lankan Government ever had to be lost. That is why the ceasefire is essentiala point made time and again by hon. Members from all parties across the Chamber.
	However, access is also essentialfor relief organisations, as many hon. Members have argued so powerfully, and for human rights organisations and the international media. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) was right to highlight that part of our motion. There is an urgent need for the international media not just to arrive in Sri Lanka and report on the carnage, but to stay and report on the process that builds peace in the future. That must be essential, not least in the light of the Sri Lankan Government's reputation for suppressing their own media and access for media from other countries. I believe that only two countries in the whole globe have worse records when it comes to ensuring access for the media.
	Day by day, the humanitarian crisis has worsened. As the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) made clear in her speech, what is unfolding is not just a crisis but an absolute catastrophe. The Minister noted in her opening remarks that 50,000 Tamil civilians are trapped in just 5 square miles. They are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea by an army set on a military objective that has no regard for the civilians in its sights. Those civilians are under fire, and they are sitting targets; it is no wonder, then, that so many of them are coming out injured, or that so many are dying.
	The ones who escape face the prospect of the welfare camps, which are little more than concentration camps. Given the history of the Sri Lankan Government's intent not to settle people afterwards, what is the future for those who eventually wind up in those camps? There must be free and unfettered access to the camps, both for them and for the relief and human rights organisations as well. We need food and medicine, and we need human rights to be respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was absolutely right to raise concerns about the growing numbers of people who are said to be disappearing from the camps.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that the real fear is that at the end of whatever is happening now, people will not be allowed home to their villages, their fishing and their communities. The fear is that there will be some reorganisation of north-east Sri Lanka. Those people must also be allowed to go hometo go to where they came from.

Paul Burstow: That point is absolutely central. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) acknowledged, in opening the debate, the leadership that the Prime Minister has given, and the leadership that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) has shown in his work as the Prime Minister's special envoy. We wish him Godspeed on the journey that he is to make with other hon. Members in the cross-party delegation. We hope that it achieves its objectives.
	If one talks to Tamils in Parliament square, either today or on any other day on which they are there demonstrating, and one will determine the anger and frustration at the slowness with which the international community is moving on the issue. So how can it be right, as has been mentioned in the debate, that the International Monetary Fund is considering a loan of 1.9 billion to Sri Lanka? I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), winds up the debate, he will tell the House that any such loan will, at the very least, have preconditions placed on it to do with securing unfettered access for the UN and other agencies that need to go about their work on behalf of the common good.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked about genocide, and asked the Government to seek a legal opinion. As a signatory to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, surely the Government should do just that. I hope that the Minister can give us a positive response on that point.

Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: I really cannot, because I want to give the Minister at least 10 minutes to respond to the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), referred in her speech to the Commonwealth ministerial action group, and to the fact that she raised the issue with it, which is welcome. Cannot the Government go further and ensure that the issue is an item on the group's agenda, and commission the Commonwealth to undertake human rights reports and an analysis of the situation?
	The right hon. Member for Enfield, North, made an important point about the humanitarian crisis. She raised the question of how the issue could be brought forward at the United Nations, given the obstacle of China and Russia. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will respond to the novel reading of the rules that the right hon. Lady offers, and that it might provide a creative way of getting matters debated at the UN. In our motion, the Government are urged
	to make it clear to all sides that those who are proved to have committed war crimes in this conflict will be in danger of arrest, prosecution and punishment wherever they go for the rest of their lives.
	I hope that the House can say that clearly to everyone here tonight, and I hope that the Minister can make that clear, too.
	The debate has been not about dividing the House, but about unity of purpose, and that purpose is clear. We need to make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that we must have a ceasefire and a process of genuine political dialogue that delivers the peace and justice that every person on the island of Sri Lanka deserves. That is what the debate is about. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the questions that I have posed.

Michael Foster: First, I would like to thank colleagues from across the House for their thoughtful and powerful contributions to this timely and important debate. I am glad to hear that we are to unite behind one motion, so that the sentiments that have been expressed by Members in all parts of the House will ring out loud and clear from this Chamber. I will use my remarks to address some of the issues that have been raised, and to restate the severity of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. I should also like to reassure the House and the Tamil diaspora in the UK that we are sparing no effort to bring relief to those affected, and are working with the international community to push all parties to find a long-term, sustainable solution to the conflict.
	However, as several speakers have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), the suffering of the people of Sri Lanka will not end with the fall of the remaining strongholds of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. We and the international community have continued to make it clear that there can be no military solution, and we have called time and again for a ceasefire. As I discussed with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), lasting peace in Sri Lanka will come about only through a fully inclusive political process that takes into account the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lanka's communitiesSinhalese, Tamils and Muslim.
	I should like to put on the record the Government's response to concerns expressed in the debate about genocide. We will call for an early investigation as to whether crimes have been committed against civilians.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House that assurance. May I confirm that we will not divide on our motion, but will accept and support the Government's amendment, because of the Minister's statement about ensuring that there will be an early investigation of war crimes, and because the Government amendment is clear on the ceasefire demand, and because our aim is to unite the House tonight?

Michael Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which are on the record, and will be noted not only in the Chamber but right across the world.

Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Foster: I should like to make a little more progress, as there are issues that I need to address.
	I was in the north of Sri Lanka only two days ago, and I saw for myself the conditions in which some of the 180,000 displaced people are living in the camps that have been set up around Vavuniya. About 113 of them have arrived in the past 10 days, and they are exhausted and traumatised. Many of them have travelled for two days without any food or water to reach the camps. While I was there, I met several people who described to me the terrible conditions in the area from which they had come, and they expressed genuine hope and desire that one day soon they would be able to return to their homes and be reunited with their families.
	Many thousands of civilians remain trapped in the conflict zonethe exact number is unknownliving in constant fear for their lives, in the most basic conditions. The conditions on that tiny strip of land, less than 5 square miles in size, were described by people on the ground as absolute chaos and mayhem. Civilians are trapped in constant fighting, and throughout the area, every humanitarian need remains unmet. The situation is deteriorating rapidly. Furthermore, there is repeated evidence that the LTTE is forcibly recruiting civilians, including children, to fight, as well as using lethal force to stop them escaping the conflict zone. The House will agree that such behaviour is utterly unacceptable, and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
	There is almost no international presence in the conflict zone. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only international humanitarian agency that has been able to operate in LTTE-controlled territory. Since September, it has evacuated 11,500 casualties and their carers by sea in difficult circumstances and at considerable risk to its own staff and volunteers. There are plans to evacuate a further 1,500 people in the coming days. While I was in Sri Lanka on the Government's behalf, I paid tribute to them and all those involved in providing humanitarian support in the region. DFID will continue to provide financial support to the ICRC to enable it to continue its life-saving work.
	Another rapidly growing humanitarian case load consists of the internally displaced persons who have managed to escape the conflict, and are held in camps. Once they arrive, civilians are held under military control, with freedom of movement within, but not outside, the camps. Although humanitarian agencies have been working hard to provide for the needs of those people, the Sri Lankan Government were not fully prepared for the most recent influx, and there remain huge unmet needs for shelter, water, food and medical assistance.
	While we welcome the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to improve living conditions in the camps over the past few days, there is no room for complacency, and it is clear that much more needs to be done to ensure that all basic needs are met. The camps are far from ideal, but in the words of the civilians I met on Monday, they offer safer and better conditions than they experienced in the conflict zone. However, I have to put it on the record that the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian agencies by the Sri Lankan Government has meant that the response has fallen short of what is needed. The international agencies are ready to respond, but continued restrictions on personnel and supply chains are causing further unnecessary suffering. We have consistently lobbied the Sri Lankan Government to allow full and unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies, and we will continue to do so.
	Specifically on access, we are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause in hostilities to stop the terrible daily suffering and loss of life, and to facilitate the safe and dignified exit of all civilians from the conflict zone; the immediate re-starting of food and other relief shipments, especially medical supplies, to those trapped in the conflict area; greatly increased UN and international presence in the conflict area; a continuous and permanent international presence at both the Omantai and Killinochchi screening points to ensure protection for those IDPs who have escaped; unhindered access to IDP camps in Government-controlled areas for NGOs, the UN and donors, and an immediate lifting of restrictions on personnel and supplies; and for the Government of Sri Lanka to uphold international principles of internal displacement at screening sites and in camps.

Barry Gardiner: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, will he pay tribute to those in Parliament square who have been bringing the crisis to our attention, and particularly to the young man, Parameswaran, who has been on hunger strike? Does he agree that the unity in the House is a fitting tribute to what has been achieved and that it should now result in the end of that hunger strike?

Michael Foster: The House will speak today loudly and clearly with a single voice, but I saw too much suffering and misery on my visit to Sri Lanka and the camps to allow me to wish for any further suffering by Tamil people here in the United Kingdom.
	In addition to the access requirements that we have been calling on the Government of Sri Lanka to provide, it is essential that they live up to their own commitment to allow 80 per cent. of the IDPs to return to their homes by the end of the year. It is important that those camps are temporary. The humanitarian community should focus only on emergency assistance until safe and sustainable returns are possible. We as a Government stand ready to support in practical ways the early resettlement of civilians.
	The UK has taken a range of practical actions to alleviate the suffering of those affected by the conflict. Since September last year, DFID has allocated 7.5 million of humanitarian assistance to Sri Lanka. This money has been used to support the work of agencies best able to provide direct assistance on the ground. I repeat the assurance given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that all UK funding that has been provided goes directly to neutral and impartial agencies to save lives and reduce suffering.
	We have in place in Colombo an expert humanitarian adviser, who is able to steer the humanitarian response in close co-operation with other key donors there. I can announce today a further allocation of 550,000 to United Nations Operations to provide emergency shelters for 1,400 households, together with water and sanitation provision for at least 11,500 IDPs. This leaves us with about 2.6 million on hand to respond rapidly to developing needs on the ground.
	In conclusion, the United Kingdom remains committed to supporting progress towards a lasting peace in Sri Lanka. We recognise that there can be no military solution to the conflict, and that a sustainable peace will be reached only when all sides take it upon themselves to lay down their arms and engage in constructive dialogue. The UK will continue to work with international partners to convince the Government of Sri Lanka to step up their efforts to pursue such a practical political process.
	In the meantime we will work to avert the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding. We will continue to support efforts to bring relief to those affected by the conflict, and together with the international community, we will continue to urge all sides to live up to their commitments under international humanitarian law that is designed to protect civilians and allow safe passage out of the conflict zone.
	 Question (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question,  put and negatived.
	 Question (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith and agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House strongly supports the efforts of the Government within the United Nations, the European Union, the G8 and other international bodies to bring about an end to the conflict in Sri Lanka, to open the way for an international humanitarian relief effort and to promote a process of political reconciliation; welcomes the 7.5 million the Government has already committed to the relief effort; supports the Foreign Secretary's joint visit to Sri Lanka with his French counterpart; endorses the Government's calls for the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to declare an immediate ceasefire and to allow the civilians trapped in the No Fire Zone to leave unhindered, facilitated by the UN; urges both parties to the conflict to allow full and unrestricted access for humanitarian aid to be safely delivered; supports the Government's efforts to persuade the government of Sri Lanka to allow international oversight of all internally displaced persons, including a transparent registration process and improved conditions within the camps with better access to food, water and medical facilities; urges the government of Sri Lanka to allow freedom of movement in and out of the camps so that families separated by the conflict can be reunited; and endorses the Government's efforts to persuade the government of Sri Lanka to initiate a process of political reconciliation with all speed as the only way of ensuring a lasting peace between the communities.'.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House I will put motions 3 and 4 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

prevention and suppression of terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) (Revision) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.

tribunals and inquiries

That the draft Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Lands Tribunal and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved. (Helen Goodman.)
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 30 April, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Members' Allowances, Members' Allowances (Greater London), Registration of Members' Financial Interests, Members' Staff, Members' Allowances (Evidence of Expenditure) and Members Estimate Committee (Amendment of the Green Book) not later than 5 pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. (Helen Goodman.)

Swine Flu Update

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a further statement on swine flu.
	We continue to watch with concern the situation in Mexico and the USA, and to be guided by the World Health Organisation about further changes to the alert level. On Monday evening, the World Health Organisation raised the alert level to 4. That indicates that there are clusters of outbreaks and that the disease is being passed from person to person. In a press conference late this afternoon, the WHO indicated that although the alert level is still at 4, we may be approaching a phase 5 alert. That would mean that there are large clusters of outbreaks but that person-to-person transmission is still localised, which would suggest that the virus is becoming increasingly better adapted to humans. The WHO message is clear: countries across the world must do everything in their power to prepare for the possibility of a full-blown phase 6 pandemic.
	I would like to update the House on how this very fast-moving situation is affecting the UK. It was confirmed on Monday that there were two cases of swine flu in Scotland. Both patients are recovering well. As the Prime Minister told the House today, there are now three additional confirmed cases in the UK. A 41-year-old woman from Redditch and a 22-year-old man in north London have both contracted the virus. The 41-year-old is in isolation at home and has already responded well to treatment. Five of her close contacts have also been treated with antiviral drugs. The 22-year-old man in London has been admitted to hospital.
	The other confirmed case is a 12-year-old girl in Torbay, in Devon. The Health Protection Agency has identified that she has been in close contact with 50 people. As a precaution, antivirals have been given to a total of 230 people in the schoolthe entire school year. On the advice of the Health Protection Agency, the head teacher is closing the school today. It will be closed for approximately seven days, including the weekend.
	All cases that have been confirmed so far are among people who have recently been in Mexico, which is the main affected area. So far, all those who have contracted the disease have experienced relatively mild symptoms and are recovering wellthat is all those outside Mexico.
	In light of recent events and to strengthen further our contingency plans, I have taken the following steps. I confirmed in my statement on Monday that we have built up a significant stockpile of the antiviral drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, to prepare for this situation. Both those drugs have proved effective in relieving the symptoms of those who have been infected, but we will now increase this stockpile to cover 80 per cent. of the population. That does not mean that we expect anywhere near that number of people to be affected. It does mean that we will have enough antiviral drugs to treat 50 million people, and make sure that all front-line NHS staff have their own supplies of antivirals as a preparatory measure.
	In addition to increasing availability of antivirals, we are increasing our stockpiles of antibiotics. Although antibiotics have no impact on the flu virus, they will be essential for dealing with any complications such as pneumonia, which might arise from infection.
	On face masks, as the chief medical officer reiterated today, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the widespread issue of such masks to healthy members of the public can stop the disease spreading. Moreover, they can give false reassurance and encourage people to ignore basic and straightforward hand hygiene measures, which have proved effective. However, specialist and other types of face mask are useful for front-line NHS staff who care for infected patients, if the face masks are the appropriate type, worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good hygiene measures.
	Although we have a supply of face masks for NHS staff, we need more. In the past 24 hours, we have completed contracts for more than 60 million masks, which will start to become available this week. They will be both surgical and respiratory masks, giving staff a broad range of protection when they come into contact with infected patients.
	Providing information to the public is one of our strongest lines of defence. A mass public health campaign will begin tomorrow, with print, TV and radio adverts. They will warn the public about swine flu and remind them to cover their noses and mouths with tissues when they cough and sneeze and, then, to throw the tissue away and wash their handsthe same good, basic hand hygiene advice that applies to all types of colds and to seasonal flu. In addition, a leaflet will be dropped through people's doors from next Tuesday, providing information on the steps that they can take to protect themselves from infection, and telling them what to do should they contract the virus. From tomorrow, members of the public who want further information will be able to ring a single number, 0800 1 513 513, for regular recorded updates on the situation.
	The threat that we face is serious, but we have never been as prepared for a pandemic as we are now. The plans that we have in place are robust and have been thoroughly tested. Scientists know more about flu now than they have ever done. When our country last faced the threat of a flu pandemic, in 1968, there was no national plan and most measures that are available today did not exist. If a pandemic emerges, no one can turn back the tide, but, with international co-operation, scientific endeavour, effective plans and dedicated front-line staff, we can reduce its impact and ensure that we avoid the level of sickness that was experienced in the three pandemics of the last century. I shall ensure that Parliament is properly updated as the situation develops.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his update on the impact of the swine flu outbreak, and I thank him for the further steps that have been taken following the statement on Monday. He knows, and I told the House, that for a long time we have pressed for the acquisition of a strategic stockpile of face masks, and, although it had not been done beforehand, it will be done now, and that is welcome. Equally, we pressed for an extension to the antiviral stockpile, and the Secretary of State has now said that it is available. Two questions arise from that, however. Does he intend to acquire the additional stockpile to pursue a strategy of treatment for all cases that may emerge, and does he intend to provide, prophylactically, as a preventive measure, antiviral drugs to the close household contacts of those who are infected?
	There are two questions about the distribution of Tamiflu to NHS workers, too. First, will it be extended not only to NHS front-line workers, but to front-line workers in other care home contexts? Secondly, is the distribution intended for their use if they become symptomatic, or if they are exposed to the virus?
	The Secretary of State talked about the acquisition of a further stockpile of antivirals, but on what timetable does he expect that additional Tamiflu to be received? He has reached the point at which he is giving us, quite properly, the information about what is happening, but I do not sense that we have been told the Government's strategy. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clarify the current strategy? We lack certain evidence about the nature of this virus and its spread, and the impact on humans, but good evidence is emerging that it may be a relatively mild strain of flu, although it is spreading fast. We therefore have the capacity, as he illustrated, to take quite an aggressive strategy against it in the United Kingdom and commit ourselves to ensuring that antiviral treatment will be available for all cases, pursuing household prophylaxispreventive measures with all close contactsand securing 100 per cent. vaccination as soon as a vaccine becomes available. Can he confirm that were there to be a second wave, antibiotic stockpiles would already be available for those with complications arising from flu infection? In that context, is he confident that we will have an antibiotics stockpile for 14 per cent. of the population, as indicated by Department of Health modelling?
	I say all that about a strategy because, as the Secretary of State will recall, in September last year the scientific pandemic influenza advisory committeean easy name to rememberdid a modelling summary of what we know, which said:
	Having taken 2 to 4 weeks to build up in the country of origin, pandemic flu could take as little as 2 to 4 weeks to spread...to the United Kingdom
	indeed it canand that we should
	assume, for the purposes of developing intervention strategies, that the outbreak will spread throughout the UK in less than 2 weeks.
	It went on to say:
	Contact tracing
	the Secretary of State did not talk about that, but it is important to emphasise
	of the first few hundreds of cases in the UK will be essential for the accurate determination of disease parameters.
	We must ensure that we contact-trace all those who are exposed to the virus in the short run. The committee set out how the strategy that I described, using all those interventions, might be
	sufficient to limit the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths to the levels of the targeted strategy...even if one component intervention is ineffective.
	Where school closures are concerned, the modelling said:
	Combined with a household prophylaxis policy (as opposed to simply treating cases), closing schools can have an important effect on the profile of the epidemic and the overall number of clinical cases (in adults as well as children).
	The Secretary of State said that Paignton community college would be closed for a week, but the modelling would assume that it would be closed for three weeks. If a case of flu is identified at the school, do the Government intend that it will be closed for three weeks?
	Let me ask about the national flu line; I know that the Secretary of State is disappointed that that is not available. The Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions that interim measures would be put in place. Clearly, the telephone number that the Secretary of State mentioned is not such a measure. GPs across the country need to know how they can access good information and advice. Updates provided to front-line cliniciansfor example, an RSS feed on a six-hourly basis, with a clinical focuswould be an important facility for them to have available. They also need to know how they can access Tamiflu if they have patients who require it.
	Does the Secretary of State have any further results from inquiries into why cases appear to have a high mortality rate in Mexico but not in other countries? What does the Health Protection Agency at Colindale know so far about the character of this virus and its interaction with humans?
	The Secretary of State knows that were the flu to become more severe, we would need substantial numbers of critical care beds and ventilators. Since the United Kingdom has substantially fewer intensive therapy unit beds than other countries, and those are working at full capacity for most of the time, how does he intend that we would cope with a doubling or tripling of the need for intensive care beds?
	On pig welfare, will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a case for any cull of pigs or other livestock, and will the Government, through their veterinary contacts, try to encourage other countries in the direction of reasonable and proportionate measures?
	Looking beyond our own shores, what discussion have the Government of this country had with the World Health Organisation about how the supply of antivirals will be prioritised to countries that have now placed orders? While obviously our first responsibility is to ensure that every possible protection is in place for the people of this country, what further can we do through the WHO to support the least developed countries? If we do not support them, there is a risk, as the Secretary of State will know, that a pandemic will expose the gap between rich and poor in this worldthat we will protect our population effectively but find that there are literally millions of deaths in the poorest countries in the world. What are we doing to try to reduce that risk?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asked some very important questions. On antiviralsthis also relates to one of his other pointsat this stage we have the ability to isolate and contain this flu. As he says, it is mild so far, so we can use the antivirals as a prophylactic at the moment. That is one reason we have ordered extra suppliesso that we do not dilute the provision of antivirals if we do get to the stage of a full-blown pandemic. The use of antivirals is indeed in preparation for treatment but also, on a prophylactic basis, a preventive measure in all the outbreaks that are occurring at the moment, so that we can contain them.
	As far as NHS staff are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the framework we have announced is for NHS staff and staff in adult social care, and he made an important point about that. NHS staff are being issued with Tamiflu as a prophylactic. It is actually more important to them than face-masks, so that is the idea. The problem with people using it as a prophylactic, as the chief medical officer would say if he were at the Dispatch Box, is that they have to keep taking it, and then when they stop taking it, they become immediately prone. However, it will help NHS staff to have that there ready for the next stage.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when the supplies will be ready. It will be the end of May at the latest, in accordance with the contract that we have signed. The antibiotic stockpile will cover about 14 per cent. of the population, in accordance with the strategy.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of contact tracing, which has worked very well both in Scotland initially and in England. It is a very important part of the strategy, and the Health Protection Agency and others are helping. The HPA's announcement today was that every single flight that comes in from Mexico, wherever it lands, will be met by its officials, and that we will ask the airlines to keep the records that they normally destroy after 24 hours for at least a week. There will be other measures to ensure that we can better use contact tracing quickly.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about school closures. As he well knows, the framework mentions trying to keep schools open, because if we close the schools, nurses will have to look after the children and we will get into a bad situation. At the moment, during this phase 4 containment stagewe have to make a distinction between the phasesit makes sense to close Paignton community college. The initial decision by the head teacher and the education authorities was to close it for a week, and obviously they will review that based on advice from the HPA.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the national flu line. The concept of the flu line does not exist anywhere else in the world. We signed the contract with BT in December. That line will be set up for a stage when we are in considerable difficulties and people cannot leave their home, or are advised not to, so that they can ring a number and find a nurse at the other end who can ask some simple questions and give them a code, and someone can go on their behalf to collect the antivirals. That system will not be up and running until October. We can discuss all the reasons why afterwards, but in the current situation it will not be available until then. Every single health authority has been told to build into its plans arrangements on the assumption that it will not have the flu line available, and those arrangements look very robust. I am considering ways in which we can improve them, perhaps by getting NHS Direct and its single number to be part of them. We are currently considering all the possibilities for doing that, but if we cannot have a replica of the national flu line, we will have robust systems for distribution of antivirals around the country when we move to that phase.
	We know nothing further about Mexico at the moment. As far as I know, there is no further information. The World Health Organisation is very aware of the need to ensure that the matter does not become a case of rich versus poor. Curiously, there have been no cases in Africa. The WHO feeling was that, given the number of people with low immunity, cases would have been reported there, but, at the moment, that has not happened.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not here, I think I can safely say that we would not follow the route that Egypt announced today. As I said on Monday, we see no reason to affect the British pig industryand no reason for any country, anywhere to start slaughtering stocks.

Norman Lamb: May I also thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and for keeping me directly informed daily about the development of the potential pandemic?
	Clearly, it is commonly accepted that this country is one of the leading countries for preparedness, but now it has come to applying the plans. It is important for people to remain calm, but that requires confidence in the system, and confidence that the procedures are robust, that there is absolute clarity about the advice, and that all parts of the systemfrom the national to the regional to the localwork in concert.
	There was a report in today's  Evening Standard and on the BBC, which raises some concern about clarity of advice. First, it appears that there are shortages of Tamiflu in pharmacies in many parts of the country. What is happening to ensure that Tamiflu gets to the pharmacies so that doctors and patients can get hold of it when needed?
	There are reports in London of confusion about whether health protection units or GPs should carry out the tests. There is also confusion about whether patients should go to the GP practice. A case has been confirmed directly to me of a patient being told to go to the GP. There are other cases of people being advised to stay at home and that someone will visit them. Will the Secretary of State provide absolute clarity on all those matters to ensure that people understand what to do?
	The Secretary of State said that masks are available only for health and care workers, yet he is ordering 60 million. That seems a substantial number for that purpose. Will he clarify precisely the range of people who should use them? Will they be available for informal carers, who look after people at home? If so, will advice be given to that end? If someone is confined at home because of a potential outbreak, what about other people in the home? Can they carry out their normal business and leave the home, or should they be confined, too?
	On school closures, it is an anxious time for parents, with many schools preparing for the exam season. Are there contingency plans in place and will advice be given to the education system to ensure that people understand what is supposed to happen?
	There are reports today that the French will make a request to the EU tomorrow to suspend all flights to Mexico. What is the Government's response to that?
	How much money has been allocated in the Department of Health to tackling the potential pandemic? Will the Secretary of State confirm the assumptions on which the Department is working about its progression?

Alan Johnson: On the important question of the availability of antivirals, it is important to stress, as we did on MondayI certainly did in a conversation with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)and make it clear to the public that the Tamiflu that can be bought at the chemist is not depleting the stocks that we have made available in the event of a pandemic. Those stocks are protectedthey are in warehouses and they are secure. Obviously, we must take measures, as the various regulatory agencies have done, to ensure that no system of selling Tamiflu is developing now. Measures have been taken to avoid that and to ensure that we keep stocks of Tamiflu available for the patients who need them, rather than for people who are stocking up personally.
	I have read some of the reports about London, and we will ensure that matters are clarified. Certainly, the leaflet that people will receive from Monday and the advertising that goes out tomorrow will make what happens clear. The health protection units will be crucial to ensuring that we get to the people who have symptoms of swine flu. We will ensure that we put all our resources into isolating and dealing with those cases properly.
	The advice that we give to patients is to contact their GP on the phone or NHS Direct if they feel that they have symptoms and to take it from there, not to go to their GP's surgery.
	The figure of 60 million masks has to be seen in context. Some of them come from different suppliers and have to used and replaced, depending on the supplier and the quality of the mask. Sometimes masks have to be replaced two or three times a day or even hourly. That is the thing about facemasks, and that is why I emphasised how important it is that we have NHS staff who are trained to use them. If people do not replace them regularly or if they do not wear them or dispose of them properly, they could make the problem worse rather than better. The numbers of masks that we need cannot be defined at this stage, but we know that we need lots, because we are not talking about one for each person. Rather, we need replacement masks as well.
	We depend for our best analysis of how swine flu is spreading on the WHO's advice. There is no one in greater authority, more respected or in closer touch with the WHO than the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. His reputation is standing us in good stead. He has close links with the WHO, and we are ensuring that we receive information very quickly about its assessment of how things are going. It is important that, instead of individual countries deciding to go solo on this issue, international co-operation continues to drive the science.

Norman Lamb: Suspended flights?

Alan Johnson: I am sorry, I did not answer the hon. Gentleman's point about the suspension of flights. We will know more about that when we discuss it tomorrow morning. Up until now, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice, on a phase 4 alert, is that people should go to Mexico only if they have pressing business and have no alternative.

Frank Dobson: Would my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pass on our congratulations to those working for the chief medical officer and to others in the national health service on the state of their contingency planning and the practical measures that they have already put in place? Will he also point out, particularly to the news media, that, in an imperfect world, if the incidence of flu substantially increases, there will from time to time be errors, mistakes and delays? They are unavoidable in an imperfect world, but they should not be exploited to try to stir up hysteria among the general public, who are usually a lot more sensible than the news media, particularly the BBC's Today programme.

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the chief medical officer, whom I have mentioned, and about NHS staff. One of the reasons we are well prepared is that we have an integrated universal health system. That is of enormous benefit in so many ways, particularly at a time such as this.
	In general the news media have been quite responsible on this issue. There has been the odd exceptionI think that my right hon. Friend was referring to thatbut in general, people understand that we live in an imperfect world. There is enormous pressure on the NHS, and on public services in general, but by and large that has been recognised and there has been responsible reporting of the issue, particularly in the broadcast media.

Adrian Sanders: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today?
	The thoughts of my constituents are very much with the child who has caught the flu and her family and with her friends and their families. There is a great deal of anxiety in the community as a consequence of recent events. I would like to praise on record Jane English of Paignton community college, Anthony Farnsworth of the primary care trust and Torbay council, all of whom have, in different ways, been roped in during this emergency, which is effectively what it is, and who have all handled the situation extremely well. However, there are some questions that I would like to ask. Paignton community college has two sites: a lower school and an upper school. When people say that the college is closed, do they mean both sites, or do they mean just the lower school site that this pupil was attending? The stockpile of antivirals

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and I called him to speak right away because of the case in his constituency, but he must understand that this is a statement, and that there are other [ Interruption. ] Don't worry, I will call the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) as well. Nobody has to get into a panic. The one thing that I do not want is Members putting a series of questions to the Secretary of State, so we will stop at that and let the Secretary of State answer.

Alan Johnson: I appreciate the role of the hon. Gentleman in his community, and this must be a very difficult time. We will try, as we did this morning, to keep him aware of developments in his constituency. I am afraid that I do not know whether they are closing both sites or just one. I am pretty sure that everyone is acting in the best interests of the children, but I do not have an answer to that question at the moment. I do know that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that everyone locally has behaved in the most responsible fashion. I believe that the little girl is responding well to treatment, and we very much hope that we will be able to contain this case as successfully as we are containing other cases around the country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the huge amount of work that he is doing in preparation for dealing with this crisis. He mentioned the disparity involving the death rate in Mexico and the cases elsewhere. I realise that it is difficult to get information, but what representatives does he have in Mexico, and what co-operation is he getting to enable him to find out the exact strain of this virus, the location of the pig farm that it is presumed to have come from, and the way in which it mutated there? That information will clearly have an enormous effect on how fast or far it might spread.

Alan Johnson: I am afraid that I do not have any more information on the mystery of what is happening in Mexico. The Americans are certainly working very hard on this. There was a report today of the death of a baby in America, which is the first death outside Mexico. It was a Mexican baby who had gone across to America to be treated. So we just do not know, yet, but the scientists are working very hard to find the strain of the virus and to produce a vaccine. That is their major preoccupation at the moment, but it will be some time before we know those things. I will keep the House updated, and as soon as we know anything, I will report it to the House.

Anthony Steen: The Paignton community college happens to be in my constituency, although I do not know exactly where the child in question lives. There is widespread concern in south Devon that it will become a no-go area, that people will be told not to travel there by train, that the hotels will empty and that no one will go near the place. I think that the Secretary of State has an obligation to explain just how serious a threat this is, and just how serious it is for people not to get worried about travelling, and to carry on with their present arrangements. Can he give the House that assurance?

Alan Johnson: I certainly can. This is a phase 4 alert, but even if we were at phase 6, we would not be advising people to stop travelling around the country. If we were to do that, we would actually make the situation worse because important people would not be able to get to work and we would have a worse situation on our hands. On the situation in Paignton, I have now responded to both Members concerned, because there was some ambiguity about which constituency was affected. I hope that we have made it abundantly clearwe certainly did so at the press conference earlierthat the little girl was on the same plane from Mexico as the two affected people in Scotland. There is a clear link with Mexico. She is taking the antivirals and responding extremely well. We have contact-traced everyone who was involved with her, and there is absolutely no reason for anyone not to travel to Paignton or anywhere near there.

David Drew: The virus has already jumped between species. Although the pathogenesis might be complicated, it is obvious that we need a mechanism for dealing with animals as well as humans. What mechanism has the Secretary of State put in place for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that the animal health laboratories at Pirbright and Weybridge are able to carry out full surveillance of the appropriate animals to ensure that the virus does not jump between species in this country?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is fully aware. At the moment, we are not at any stage where we have any fear of this being something that is affecting animals in this country. We do not import any pigs or pig products from Mexico. The various agencies are keeping this under review, but our primary concern at the moment is that this is affecting humans. We need to keep the other issue under close oversight, obviously, but as I say, I do not want any message from the House suggesting that we have a problem with the UK pig population.

Hugo Swire: Many schoolchildren and their parents in Devon and elsewhere will be very concerned about this, not least if there is an extension in terms of quarantining schools that may have these outbreaks. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that there is provision for those who are barred from attending school when it comes to their exams?

Alan Johnson: I will talk to my right hon. Friend, but at the moment it is far too early to be thinking about that. I repeat that we are looking to isolate and contain this, which means it makes sense to close the school in these circumstances. I hope that other schools will not be affected, in Paignton or anywhere else, but we need to look at this on the basis of which phase of the situation we are in at the moment, and the advice of the local education authority and teachers. We will also have to deal with the situation with exams, which we dealt with during the floods a couple of years ago, as part of those measures.

Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House that the measures announced today will apply throughout the UK? Will he also clarify who will have overall responsibility for dealing with this issue in the UK?

Alan Johnson: These measures will apply within the UK. This is a United Kingdom strategy. It would be ludicrous for us to have any other strategy but a UK strategy. The devolved Administrations are working extremely well with us. They are at the civil contingencies committee meeting every day. As to who has the lead on this, that is not a question that should arise. We are working together very effectively to deal with this problem.

Richard Younger-Ross: If there is any doubt, the upper school is, I believe, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and the lower school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), and the child concerned [Interruption.] The child concerned is in the school in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	Considering that there are large numbers of elderly people and particularly vulnerable groups in south Devon, and considering the difficulties and fears that they face, will the Secretary of State meet a delegation of south Devon Members of Parliament, perhaps along with Members from other areas that are affected, to discuss these issues, because there are a number of questions that we wish to put?

Alan Johnson: I will consider whether one of the ministerial team can do that. This is a hectic time and the situation is moving quickly. I suggest that if we can deal with some of those questions in correspondence or phone calls, we will. If hon. Members require a meeting, of course, as with all Members of the House, we will ensure that that is facilitated.

John Gummer: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will help us. Although it is absolutely clear that the problems for humans are the key issue, it is important, in advance, to ensure that all the veterinarians in the European Community have made the decision that they will act in concert. Although we do not import from Mexico, historically we have found that if such action is taken when there is not a problem, so to speak, people at least know what will happen. I have some personal experience of that aspect.

Alan Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman certainly has more experience than I have on these issues. I will ensure that the points made by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tomorrow, so that we can consider giving proper information to Parliament and elsewhere about how we are dealing with these specific issues of whether there could be a switch over into the animal population.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the cases to which he referred in his statement has occurred in the borough of Barnet? Will he join me in sending the good wishes of the House for a swift recovery to the individual concerned? Will he give reassurance to my constituents in Chipping Barnet that every possible effort is being made to trace those who have come into contact with the individual concerned? Will he ensure that Barnet's primary care trust and Barnet council are fully briefed on the situation? At the moment, the council is anxious to do everything it can to help, but is finding it difficult to get information about what is happening from the Department of Health.

Alan Johnson: Yes to all those questions. If problems getting in touch with the Department of Health are being experienced in the hon. Lady's constituency, perhaps she will let me know the nature of those. Today has been difficult, because the cases were reported around the late morning and midday, and the gentleman concerned is now being treated in hospital. We will try to resolve any breakdown in communications.

Richard Taylor: Is it the intention that every patient who phones their GP after having isolated themselves at home will get the test, so that they will know whether they and their close contacts must have antivirals?

Alan Johnson: That is what we are trying to do. Those concerned have had a connection with Mexico or people on flights from Mexicothat is the basic issue. We want to differentiate those people who are just feeling ill and those who have a link to Mexico. At the moment, not a single case has arisen anywhere that does not involve a recent trip to Mexico.

Andrew Murrison: In outlining his plans for barriers and chemoprophylaxis, the Secretary of State has rightly focused on health care staff. Were the situation to go to level 6, however, he would have to consider other infrastructure-critical workers. I wonder what thought he has given to that, and which workers he has identified as potentially being in need of prophylaxis to keep our infrastructure on an even keel.

Alan Johnson: We have considered that, and it is set out in some detail in our framework for when we move to phase 6, and indeed to phase 5, when some of the preparations will start. I do not want to list the workers concerned, because such a level would involve fatalities, and an awful lot of staff would be covered. Perhaps when we move to that level, a full list of people

Michael Penning: When?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asks, When? from a sedentary position. As the World Health Organisation is now considering moving to phase 5, we should not be optimistic that the situation will stay at phase 4. At that stage, we will make it absolutely clear that other workerstoo many to mention in this statementwill need to be covered.

Angela Browning: Will the hygiene advice to households include more than the basic hygiene rules mentioned in the Secretary of State's statement, so that those who have to nurse relatives at home can attempt to replicate some sort of barrier nursing domestically?

Alan Johnson: Not at this stage, although the basic hygiene messages are the important ones at the moment. The hon. Lady makes an important point about the role of carers, if we move to a full-blown pandemic, in collecting antivirals and so on. We want everyone, including carers, to abide by those basic, good-sense messages about hygiene, in all spheres.

Gurkhas

Phil Woolas: This Government respect the will of the House of Commons. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government took the first action to provide justice for the Gurkhas and enable them to settle in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas in Britain have been granted, and 6,000 of them have applied successfully to settle in this country.
	We have also introduced equal pay and pensions for the Gurkhassomething that had not happened previously. We doubled the pensions of people staying in Nepal and increased the overall pension for Gurkhas, especially those at a senior age. The guidance that we introduced last week will increase the number of Gurkhas eligible to come to this country by 4,000 or, including families, about 10,000 people.
	However, we recognise the strong feeling in all parts of the House on this subject. As was recognised in the debate this afternoon, this is a complex issue with wide-ranging implications. The cost of implementing the decision of the House of Commons could well run into billions of pounds. The Government also have an obligation to consider the precedent for future decisions on other immigration categories, and wider Government policy. We cannot, therefore, responsibly or fairly rush into the formulation of new policy. We can and do commit to immediate action on individual cases, and we are setting a clear time frame for the next stage of the reform.
	In the light of the decision of the House, I am bringing forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May. That will ensure that those who qualify under the guidelines now in force get confirmation of that as soon as possible, and we will report to the House the outcome of this work. In addition, based on that work, and recognising the strong feeling of the House, we will come forward with proposals for the next stage of our reform of the rules, to ensure that the Government continue to deliver a fair outcome for ex-Gurkhas and their families. We will publish this next stage before the summer recess.
	I said in the House earlier that we cannot foresee circumstances in which ex-Gurkhas in the UK, who have served this country so well, would ever be removed from the United Kingdom. I can now say, in addition, that anyone whose case is considered under the current guidelines and does not qualify, whether in the UK or in Nepal, will not have that decision implemented pending the publication of the next stage of our reform.
	The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs has indicated its intention to conduct a hearing on this issue next week, and I welcome that. In addition, I will share our review of the applications with the Committee, once it has been completed. We will consider the guidelines published last Friday in the light of the decision of the House today, and we will introduce proposals based on the experience of our consideration of the outstanding applications.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. He clearly recognises the importance of what happened earlier. The House of Commons spoke, and spoke clearlyit told the Government that their attitude to the Gurkhas was unfair, ungenerous, and unacceptable. The Opposition parties and brave members of the Labour Party came together to speak and vote on behalf of the Gurkhas and their families. These are people to whom we owe a huge debt of honour, and it reflects well on this House that we have collectively recognised that debt.
	It is also good that Ministers recognised so quickly that they needed a new policy, and I can see that the Minister could give us only a holding statement today. The test that we will now apply is whether that policy meets the needs of the Gurkhas and their supporters. Will Ministers be able to look Gurkhas in the eye and say, We are being fair to you?  [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), says from a sedentary position that they can do that now. I suggest to him that he should remember that several hours ago the House of Commons told him that he could not do that now. Rather than adopt the arrogant approach of saying that they can do that now, he should recognise that he lost the vote, that the House of Commons spoke clearly and that he should stop trying to defy the will of the House.
	This afternoon, I offered the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who throughout this has taken a more sensible view than his colleague from the Ministry of Defence, a route to a position where we could look the Gurkhas in the eye fairly and a practical way of bringing it into law quickly. I suggested introducing a new tier in the points-based system specifically for non-UK ex-service personnel, which would overwhelmingly mean giving these new rights to pre-1997 Gurkhas. I also said that the Minister could introduce this idea, or any of his own new ideas, in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, which is about to come to this House. If the campaigners for the Gurkhas are right and roughly 8,000 soldiers and their dependants would want to apply, the problem could be solved within a few years, and the permanent right to settle would be enshrined in that law. I once again commend that solution to the Government.
	The Minister once again repeated the claim that the cost would be billions of pounds. How does he arrive at a sum of that magnitude? What age profile is he assuming for those who would want to come here? What illness profile is he assuming and, most of all, what numbers is he assuming to arrive at that very large number? Will he recognise that if he adopted our proposal, or something like it, it would lead to proper control of the cost on an annual basis, as well as meeting our obligations to the Gurkhas? If, as he says, he cannot foresee circumstances in which any Gurkha would be removed from the UK, why does he not simply say that no Gurkha will be removed from the UK?
	Above all, can the Minister assure us that the next time he comes before the House there will be some real substance in his statement and a real and substantial change of policy? This has been a bad day for the Government, but much more importantly it has been a good day for the Gurkhas. We need to move on, so that not just Ministers but the whole country can look the Gurkhas in the eye and say, We owe you a debt of honour and we are prepared to repay that debt. Unless and until we can do that, this issue has not been resolved. We, and more importantly the Gurkhas, will need a good deal of reassurance on that point.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the statement. First, he asked whether the Government will be able to look the Gurkhas in the eye. In this afternoon's debate and in my statement, we have explained the proud record that we have in providing support for current and ex-Gurkhas, but clearly both sides of the House feel that we need to go further.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the basis for my figures. The lesson of today is that it is easy to form policy in opposition. It is easy to make pledges in opposition, as the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramallno Labour supporter hesaid in an article in  The Independent on Sunday, which I commend to those Opposition Members who may be tempted to crow. The fact is that the commitment to the Gurkhas and their families and dependants would incur public expenditure for the taxpayer, and the responsible behaviour for a Government is to calculate those costs and not rush into decisions.
	Thirdly, in response to the hon. Gentleman's reasonable questions, I can assure him that we will cost the policy that he has announced on the hoof today. It appeared to me that that took his leader by surprise. The hon. Gentleman has swapped an immigration cap for an immigration helmet. If he fulfils his pledge to the Commonwealth servicemen that they will have the rights that he wishes the Gurkhas to have, his policy for a cap on immigration would have severe implications for tiers 1 and 2 of the new points-based system. In fact, we calculate that the numbers would wipe out tier 1 altogether. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman trying to square that circle [ Interruption. ] It is characteristic of him that he chunters rather than answers the question. The Conservatives' policy would involve a cap as well as a separate tier.
	The hon. Gentleman asked [ Interruption. ] Listen to this point, because the Gurkhas deserve our respect. The hon. Gentleman asked whether any Gurkha would be removed. I think that he acceptshe made this point in the debatethat there are certain provisos and a presumption on this point. The policy situation is that removals are looked at case by case. No Government can give a blanket general policy on deportation for fear of setting a precedent that the law could apply elsewhere, with unintended consequences.
	I made the position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very clear: we cannot envisage circumstances in which people involved in the applications will be deported. In recognition of the debate this afternoon, I give again the commitment that we will not take action against people from the 1,500 who do not meet the current guidelines until we have clarity on the new guidelines. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), whose debate it was, accepts the genuine intention of the House in that regard. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) asked for real substance, and I think that that measure will be the test. We are committed to it.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight, albeit fleeting, of his statement, which was obviously done in some haste. I thank him, too, for responding so quickly to the requests of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked that he come to the House and make a statement as soon as possible in response to the House's clear view this afternoon. That was a victory for democracy and for the will of this House.
	Frankly, that vote was an historic moment. It was only the fourth defeat of this Government since 1997. However, I am trying to make a point not about party politics, but about the widespread feeling across this House that the Gurkhas were not being treated as fairly and equitably as they should be given the exceptional service that they have rendered to this country. We had to move beyond looking in detail at the penny-pinching aspects of this decision, and we made a rather larger statement about what we felt to be our moral obligations to the Gurkhas, given that they have served with such distinction and have been prepared to lay their lives on the line for us.
	The test of what the Government do will be actions and not words. I welcome the most important aspect of this statement, which came at the beginning when the Minister said clearly that this Government respect the will of the House of Commons. In his response to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), he slid a little way back into the to-ing and fro-ing of the earlier debate, but I hold him to that early statement, because that is the fundamental point.
	I have some detailed questions about the statement, and particularly about the costs. We have now had three estimates of the likely costsone of 1.5 billion, one from the Prime Minister of 1.4 billion and now one from the Minister, which states that the costs of implementing the decision could well run into billions of pounds. We have an entire absence of detail about what the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence think that the costs are. At no point in today's debate were any of the details spelled out, and I believe that it would be very helpful for the Home Office to put a note in the Library to spell out what it believes the public expenditure implications are and, importantly, what it thinks that the revenue implications should be. The House should remember that if we allow indefinite leave to remain to a large number of extremely hard-working, diligent and skilled men, who are still young, there will be revenues for the Exchequer that can be put off against those items of expenditure.
	I understand that much of the detail will need to come later, but I seek reassurance about one aspect of the statement. The Minister says that he cannot foresee circumstances in which ex-Gurkhas in the UK who have served this country so well would ever be removed. I very much welcome that, as I am sure do hon. Members from across the House, because that was the clear implication of what we voted for this afternoon. However, I am concerned about the circumstances under which those people will be in the UK. For example, would they have temporary permission to work? Will they be able to survive in a way that does not push them into

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to gently interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have made a ruling that Front-Bench Members should not monopolise the questioning session in statements. The Liberals get three minutes, but we are now into four [ Interruption. ] I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not going to defy the Chair or give me a hard time. I just do not want a hard time tonight. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is well into four minutes now. He can have a few more seconds, and then he should let the Minister answer.

Christopher Huhne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the latitude that you have given me. It was, of course, a Liberal Democrat debate, and I am therefore

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not considering what happened this afternoon. I am considering the fact that my policy has always been that a Minister comes to the House and gives information. This Minister has done that, and now Back Benchers and not Front Benchers have to questioning him. The best thing that I can do is call the Minister to respond.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) asked a number of questions. I am sorry if the appearance is given that the Government are penny-pinching. It is the responsible act of a Government to look at the potential cost implications for the taxpayer. That would be right in any event, but it is especially right in the current circumstances. The fact isand the hon. Gentleman accepted as muchthat, in advance of new guidelines, we do not know how many applications and settlements there will be. We can only make estimates: we will do that to the best of our ability, but without political interference from Ministers and based on the best available advice.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there was a hint of sliding back in my statement. I was not at all intending to slide back from our commitment that the Government recognise that we must implement the will of the House of Commons. I was trying to make the partisan political point that his policythat is, the one set out by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)was made up on the back of a fag packet. The policy set out by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, of course, was made up on the back of a matchbox.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked about costs. I answered his point before, but I am not aware that I used the 1.5 billion figure. The 1.4 billion figure is our best guesstimate, but I must tell the House that that is an annual figure that will not apply for ever. If, as a result of decisions for Gurkhas, the policy to be adopted by the Government and accepted by the House were to allow settlement rights for Commonwealth soldiers and former soldiers that went beyond those currently available, there would be implications. In our view, we believe that in total they would run into billions of pounds. I do not say that as a scaremongering tactic. We lost the vote, so it would serve no purpose to say that now. I say it only to inform the House.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh then mentioned the revenue implications, but the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), has pointed out that the Government anticipate that older members of the Gurkhas will tend to take advantage of the change. That is recognised by the Gurkha campaign, and there is already anecdotal evidence that that is the case.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about deportations. I remind the House that the Government have powers on discretion anyway, consequential to the Immigration Act 1971. I think that all Members of the Houseapart from one right hon. Gentleman, who is not listeningwill know that we have discretion under the 1971 Act, which of course means that we have more flexibility than is provided under the strict guidelines.

Martin Salter: I suspect that tomorrow will be a bad day for the House of Commons, but today was a very good day for Parliament. Some 1,350 Gurkhas will now not face deportation. An unacceptable policy put forward on Friday was disowned on Wednesday, and will be reviewed in a matter of weeks. Does the Minister accept that one of the most offensive arguments put forward was the assumption in advice given to MinistersI have copies of that advicethat those Gurkhas will be on the dole and on the council housing waiting list? In fact, studies that we have done in communities with substantial numbers of Gurkhas show that the Gurkhas are working, are economically active, pay their way, and will make a massive contribution to this country.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he raised. He organised the meeting in the House of Commons during the consultation. May I say, for the record, that as a result of that meeting we revised the figures, based on the evidence that he and others presented? I intend to keep an open mind on the figures, because many people have many different points of view.

Ann Widdecombe: The Minister has made much this evening of the costs of the decision that the House of Commons took today. The costs come to about 1.5 billion, if one takes the average of the various figures that have been bandied about. Will he please put that in the context of the costs of immigration in this country as a whole? Could he please take into account the cost of supporting asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers, the cost of benefits, and the cost of all the other aspects of immigration that we in this country willingly take on board? Why are we so unwilling to take on the relatively minor costs in this case?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Lady has been consistent in her point of view

Patrick McLoughlin: On most things.

Phil Woolas: On all things, I think. The right hon. Lady has been consistent, and I respect that, and I understand the question that she asks. The answer is that the Government are implementing the biggest shake-up in immigration policy since, I would argue, the arrival of the Empire Windrush. It has been an important policy, and I think that she supported the main thrust of the issue. However politically convenient her argument is, it does not take away the fact that the costs of expanding the guidelines are real. Indeed, I think that I am right to say that the Ministry of Defence pension is a pay-as-you-go pension. An additional cost to it would have to be met from defence budgets. I know that the right hon. Lady would be the first in this House to stand up and complain if there were cuts elsewhere as a consequence of the arithmetic done to balance the books.

Keith Vaz: Nobody doubts the Government's commitment to the Gurkhas, given what the Government have done so far. The problem has been the way in which the issue has been handled. I wrote to the Minister on 4 November last year, setting out a clear and unanimously agreed policy put forward by the Home Affairs Committee. He took six months to reply to that letter, and answered it last Friday. As the debate went on, the policy was changed by the Home Secretary, who e-mailed Members of the House announcing a change in policy regarding the review. That is not the best way to handle a sensitive policy of this kind. However, I welcome the Minister's commitment to working with the Select Committee, and I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), and the Minister for agreeing to come before the Select Committee next Tuesday. Let us have a commitment to work with Parliament and the Select Committee, so that we can have a just policy for the Gurkhas.

Phil Woolas: I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for saying that I agreed to come before the Committee. I did agree to do so, but I suspect that I would not have had a choice if I had not agreed; I would have been there anyway. As I hope he knows, I respect that; I think that Select Committees do a terrific job.
	There are implications for other areas of immigration policythe House can have a debate, but that is a fact, as former immigration Ministers on both sides of the House have recognisedand there are unintended consequences, which is why we took so long, particularly regarding the issue of Commonwealth soldiers. If hon. Members do not think that there would be legal cases in the courts very quickly as a result of an expansion of policy on the Gurkhas, they should reconsider their position. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, however: we will take the Select Committee very seriously and share our findings with it, as I said in the statement.

Menzies Campbell: The Minister is to be commended for finding a reverse gear quite so quickly. However, does he regret the fact that the Government failed to accept not only the letter but the spirit of the judgment and the action for judicial review last September? Does he now accept that if the Government had accepted the spirit of that judgment, they would have been spared their embarrassment, and the Gurkhas and their dependants would have been spared both uncertainty and anxiety?

Phil Woolas: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman follows these issues closely, but I have to disagree with his interpretation. Our view is that we have accepted the spirit of the judgment that related to the guidelines. The debate and the dispute have been about the 1997 cut-off. I respect the debate and his point of view which, again, has been consistent, but for the record it is unfair to say that the Government did not accept the spirit of the judgment.  [ Interruption. ] No, the judge was very clear that the 1997 cut-off was fair. He said that it was not...irrational, and he called on us to clarify the guidelines. We have done so, but the House wanted to go further, and I recognised that in the statement.

George Howarth: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, particularly the speed with which he has returned to the House after the vote to make some clarifications. I also welcome the fact that the deadlines for the various phases of his approach have been shortened. Does he accept that the core of the problem is the disparity between the Government's estimate of the number of people who would be affected one way or another by the new guidelines and the estimate by people who are campaigning on the Gurkhas' behalf? Will he give us an assurance that the exercise that he is about to conduct will provide a definitive answer?

Phil Woolas: That is an important point, and I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I know that the House was frustrated by the debate on the numbers, but I attempted to clarify the position. My understanding is that the figure of 100 that the campaigners used was their estimate of how many of the 1,500 outstanding applications would meet the guidelines. That is a trivial figure in terms of the total numbers, and I have explained that we will not refuse any of the others until the new guidelines have been put in place. I thank my right hon. Friend for his role in that policy development.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am enormously pleased that, whatever the Minister's personal views, the Government have decided that their position is unsustainable and that they will look at this matter seriously. In the past, I have had the privilege of serving alongside the Gurkhas, who are a remarkable body of men. We owe them a massive debt of gratitude, not just for their service in previous wars but, I am sure, for their service in future wars in which we may have to call on them. The right thing to do is to take the course of action on which the Minister has embarked, and I urge him, when he meets his civil servants and anybody else who talks to him about the problems, to take on a wholly different attitude and say, Let right be done.

Phil Woolas: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but may I repeat to the House what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my colleagues from the Ministry of Defence and I have said? We want to do right by the Gurkhas in a way that does not set a precedent that is damaging to the UK taxpayer or the immigration system. Within that context, I welcome the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.

Gordon Marsden: The debt of honour that we owe to the Gurkhas is one that has been felt particularly strongly in Blackpool because of the historic connections of the town with the far east in the second world war and since. The issues have been brought home forcefully to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Having been dismayed at the initial proposals, I welcome the changes that were announced not just in the debate this afternoon, but in the further statement that my hon. Friend has made. They underline what the Government have done for Gurkhas over the past five years, which was too often forgotten in today's debate.
	One point of contention today was the issue of 20 years' service. I heard some of the explanations relating to the lower ranks, but if my hon. Friend were able to give us, perhaps during his appearance before the Select Committee, a full and definitive account of how the roll-over period from 15 years works to benefit lower ranks, that would be greatly appreciated.

Phil Woolas: Thank you. I pay tribute to the role of my hon. Friend and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I am aware of the importance of the issue in BlackpoolBritain's finest tourist destination. [Hon. Members: Oh!] The Conservative party's policy seems to be to decry Blackpool. The intent of the policy on the 20 years' service was to recognise the judge's ruling that the guidelines should be clear and should take into account both quality and quantity of service. People have ascribed to us unfairly a motive that did not exist. Under the current guidelines, the 20 years takes in 2,000 Gurkhas who would not have been included, had we not introduced the 20 years criterion. Clearly, we will need to consider the matter in the light of the view of the House and bring forward revised proposals in the review.

Evan Harris: The one thing missing from the statement is what lessons the Government have learned from a policy disaster that could have been averted if they had accepted the spirit of the judgment. In the same Department, on the highly skilled migrant programme, the Government have lost twice in the High Court and are still havering about doing the right thing, even in the case of economically productive migrants. Will the Minister say whether he thinks the Secretary of State has learned that an early change of policy on these matters would be welcomed, not condemned?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I do not accept his point about the highly skilled migrant programme. A legal point was argued; the Government had one point of view, and some lawyers had another. I do not accept, as I said in answer to the previous question, that we have gone against the spirit of the judgment. The problem has beenas a parliamentarian, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt accept thisthat the intent of Parliament and the rulings of the court sometimes present difficulties for the Executive. That is the square that any Government must circle, and it is an important point. The court's judgment was that the 1997 cut-off was fair and not irrational, but the guidelines should be clearer. The issue that has been debated today was not, in principle, the judgment of the court, nor should it be. I think the hon. Gentleman would support the idea that the intent of Parliament should carry the day, not necessarily the flexibility that the courts sometimes exercise.

Laura Moffatt: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today. Will he confirm that he cannot offer a blanket guarantee to prevent the removal from the UK of someone who may have served with the Gurkhas, if that removal relates to some offence that may have been committed? It would not be fair or right to allow a rule to apply to one group and not to others.

Phil Woolas: That is a very important point. In his contribution this afternoon the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) explained the wording of a presumption. The House will understand that in immigration law, as elsewhere, one cannot give blanket guarantees. Were we to do so, all sorts of skulduggery could, and no doubt would, take place. That is my experience.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend accept that Members on both sides of the House appreciate the policy complexities of this issue, appreciate that the Government have allowed 6,000 Gurkhas to settlean unprecedented numberand appreciate Ministers coming promptly before the House to make a statement? None the less, Gurkhas occupy a special place in the hearts of British people, and the entire House hopes that Ministers are able to come to a resolution of the issue that the Gurkhas themselves and their supporters in the British people feel is fair and just.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind comments. I am not sure whether they enhance my career, or perhaps my career is over anyway, but if they were intended to help, I thank her very much indeed. She makes an important point when she reminds the House that 6,000 Gurkhas and ex-Gurkhas have been granted settlement by the Government since 2004. From 1945 to 1997, the number was five.

Michael Gove: The Minister will be aware that I am fortunate enough to have the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst within my constituency, and therefore I am lucky enough to have a number of serving and retired Gurkhas among my constituents. The Minister stressed the costs of the policy that he is contemplating, as though the presence of these heroes in this country were somehow a burden to be borne rather than a thing to be celebrated. Will he now place on the record his view, which is my view, that the presence of the Nepali community in this country is a direct and beneficial contributor to the social, economic and cultural life of our country? We should celebrate what those heroes have done in the past and what they continue to contribute to this country.

Phil Woolas: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I stressed the argument about costs. I did not stress that argumentit makes up one sentence in the statement. However, it is right to say, as any Government would have to say, that the Executive have to look at the consequences for the taxpayer, not just at the moral issues involved. That is the way of the world.
	I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about his constituency, but I am sorry that he feels that he has to ask that question. That contribution has never been in doubt. The Government's policy is that migration to this country on the whole is beneficial, economically, culturally and in other ways. However, it is a question of balance. I know that he speaks on behalf of his constituents tonight, not on behalf of his Front-Bench team, but he needs to look at the pledge made by the hon. Member for Ashford, because if he does not, we will.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will press him again on the need to look at the impact on Nepal. On the one hand the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), slightly changing his view, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), said that there were considerable revenue advantages of Gurkhas settling in this country, which was somewhat criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). This is not a zero sum game. If there are considerable advantages for people settling in this country, there will be an impact on Nepal. Will he assure me that, with the Nepalese Government and the Indians, who are obviously privy to this matter, he will look at the arrangement to ensure we consider its whole impact? We may have to talk to the Department for International Development about ways in which we provide support, because it is wrong that another sovereign state is being asked to lose out because of changes here.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's point about consideration in policy decisions of the country of origin is extremely important and is often left out of the debate about immigration and migration. The DFID budget for Nepal is 56 million, and the amount in pensions for Gurkhas in Nepal is 54 million. This is an extremely important contribution to the Nepalese economy, and one that we should not ignore. Consideration of immigration policy should rightly include this area. Remissions are a good thing and are important to many poor countries, but we can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime, or give a man a fish and feed him for the day, and it is important that we do the former.

John Mason: Having lived in Nepal for three years, and to follow up on the previous point, I seek from the Minister an assurance that there will be no cut in aid to Nepal, because it is one of the poorest countries in the world, and it is not fair that it should suffer in any way.

Phil Woolas: The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who is better informed than I, tells me not only that I can give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee, which I respect, but that 170 million has been announced for the next three years for Nepal. We certainly will not turn our back on Nepal because of this issue, and nor would we want to.

Paul Holmes: Lance Corporal Guyanendra Rai served in the British Army for 13 years, and, while fighting in the Falklands war, his back was severely damaged by an Argentine shell explosion. Owing to the fact that he served for only 13 years, he was not entitled to a pension or to British residency, unlike a Commonwealth soldier, who would be entitled after four years' service. Will the Minister's new proposals, which are to be put before the House, provide a better and a fair deal for a soldier such as Guyanendra Rai?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult to comment on individual cases, and I add the caveat that I am not aware of the specifics of that case. Under the proposals that we published on Friday, however, his constituent would meet those criteria, and that is certainly the intention of any new proposals, too.

Susan Kramer: On a point of clarification, under what circumstances will Gurkhas remain in this country if they do not qualify under the current guidelines? He said that they will not be deported, but will they be able to work, receive benefits and use the NHS? What will the terms be, because that worries families to this day?

Phil Woolas: Obviously, again, I must add the caveat that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) prompted me to add. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it very clear to me what she expects, and I should point out that, as well as the guidelines, there are the Secretary of State's discretionary powers, which she has instructed me to use in this respect.

Bob Russell: The Minister is correct to say that his Government have done more for the Gurkhas than any other, and in 18 years the Conservative Government did nothing for them, but that makes the way in which this Government have behaved towards the pre-1997 Gurkha soldiers all the more unfortunate. As he has told the House that he does not envisage deporting any Gurkhas who are currently in the country, what is the problem with issuing work permits immediately to those who do not have them?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Labour Government's actions, and I assure him that, in the current debate, our intention was to do nothing but help Gurkhaswithout setting a precedent that would be damaging elsewhere, as I have said before. I cannot answer his question at this point, because of the categories that may exist in respect of migration cases. Under immigration law, one must look at each case individually, but I assure him that our intent is to meet the point that he makes.

Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome the Minister's statement. In it, he said that he will bring forward the reform of the rules and that we will publish this next stage before the summer recess. Will he confirm not only that the Government will publish them before the next recess, but that we will be able to debate them before that recess, and that what he brings forward will take into account the will of the House, given that the original motion called for
	revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.?
	That is what the House voted for; that is what the House expects.

Phil Woolas: I quite understand that, but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate that it is not within my remit to determine what the House debates. Clearly, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I suspect that, on this issue, however, the House will have a view.

PETITIONS

Sri Lanka

Paul Burstow: I present this petition on behalf of 600 of my constituents who are members of the British Tamil community, who recently came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) at a public meeting to tell us of their fear, frustration and anger about what is going on in Sri Lanka, and particularly to tell us about their fears for their families in Sri Lanka. Fifty thousand people are trapped in 5 square miles of Sri Lankan territory between the military and the LTTE. They are sitting targets, they are dying, they are being injured, and they are being terrorised. When they do escape, they find themselves in so-called welfare camps, which are little more than concentration camps, with no rights, no food and no humanitarian relief. There is no independent humanitarian access or rights of monitoring.
	Outside this place at this very moment, and for many days previously, thousands of Tamils have come to Parliament square to make their voice heard, and today Parliament made its voice heard on these matters.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of members of the British Tamil community, and others,
	Declares that the loss of life, denial of human rights, and restricted access of the United Nations and other relief agencies in Sri Lanka are unacceptable; and further declares that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have been displaced by military action and face an uncertain future.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000352]

Lee Scott: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 1,105 residents of Ilford, North.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Ilford North and others,
	Declares great concern at the present appalling humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the north of Sri Lanka; notes that this conflict has killed at least 70,000 people and condemns the loss of every innocent life; and strongly believes that both sides must abide by their obligations under international law and protect the lives of civilians.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to help bring about an immediate ceasefire that is recognised by both sides; to help ensure that the UN aid agencies and NGOs are granted free access to the region; to take action to suspend Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth if the Sri Lankan Government does not agree to a ceasefire; and to work towards a long term solution that takes into account the reasonable concerns of all communities in a political process that leads to lasting peace.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000353]

Immigration (Asylum Seekers)

John Battle: I am presenting a petition that calls on Parliament to ensure that asylum seekers in the UK receive fair and compassionate treatment. It has been drawn up and collected by the Vincentian Millennium Partnership, which is probably better known as SVPthe St. Vincent de Paul Society. It is supported by more than 11,000 people throughout the length and breadth of Britain. It details a number of difficulties that we all know are faced by asylum seekers coming into the UK, including their being prevented from seeking work, levels of poverty and long periods of detention, all of which make their everyday lives extremely difficult.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that those entering our country seeking asylum are treated in a just and compassionate manner which honours the long-standing British tradition of treating newcomers to these islands with welcome, respect and fairness; and further urges the Secretary of State to seek to enshrine in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill the rights of asylum seekers to adequate housing, ESOL (English as a Secondary Language) Classes, Criminal Records Bureau checks, earn a wage and contribute to taxes, engage in voluntary work, integrate into local communities, and become valued citizens of the UK.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of the Vincentian Millennium Partnership,
	 Declares that to be an asylum seeker in 2009 in the United Kingdom can entail any or a variety of the following experiencesdetention (often for years), poor housing, isolation, being moved at short notice from communities where the person has been integrated for several years with the resulting severance from their regular sources of spiritual, emotional and medical support, being denied a choice of shops through a poverty level voucher scheme which amounts to 35 per week and, most importantly, being prevented from working or from engaging in voluntary work which often leads to depression and a lack of self worth; further declares that refusal by the asylum seeker to comply with the 'system' often leads to destitution and that the only alternative may be criminal activity or prostitution; notes that being an asylum seeker often means being made a scapegoat, especially by the tabloid press which often uses a case of wrong doing by one asylum seeker to demonise them all; further notes that stories about asylum seekers being given priority for high quality housing in preference to local people are blatantly untrue but become part of the myths surrounding them; and believes that to be an asylum seeker in the United Kingdom today is to live on the edge of starvation as a cruel warning to others not to come to the United Kingdom.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that those entering our country seeking asylum are treated in a just and compassionate manner which honours the long-standing British tradition of treating newcomers to these islands with welcome, respect and fairness; and further urges the Secretary of State to seek to enshrine in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill the rights of asylum seekers to adequate housing, ESOL (English as a Secondary Language) Classes, Criminal Records Bureau checks, earn a wage and contribute to taxes, engage in voluntary work, integrate into local communities, and become valued citizens of the UK.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000354]

Post Office Closures (Cumbria)

Tim Farron: I seek to present a petition on behalf of residents of the village of Cartmel, the rural communities surrounding it and the businesses operating out of the village. The petitioners are outraged, as am I, about the closure of their post office, not 12 months after the post office network change programme concluded that it should remain. It has now been downgraded to a part-time, two mornings a week outreach service, with no guarantee of any longevity of that service. On behalf of those petitioners, I wish to present their objection.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Cartmel, Cumbria and others,
	Declares that the Post Office in Cartmel provided a crucial service which was relied upon by the local community and therefore should not have closed.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd to reinstate a full Post Office branch in Cartmel.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000359]

Sri Lanka

Edward Davey: I should like to present a petition on behalf of members of the British Tamil community and others who support the concerns that many in that community have about the fate of their friends, relatives and compatriots in the north-east of the island of Sri Lanka. I outlined many of their concerns in the debate today.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of members of the British Tamil community, and others,
	 Declares that the loss of life, denial of human rights, and restricted access of the United Nations and other relief agencies in Sri Lanka are unacceptable; and further declares that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have been displaced by military action and face an uncertain future.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000358]

Susan Kramer: I have been asked by members of the Tamil community in my constituency and others across London to represent them by presenting a petition to the House today that reflects their deep concern for relatives and others in the Tamil community who have disappeared in Sri Lanka. They are conscious of the suffering of their families and many of them are unable to be in contact with those families. While they appreciate the debate today, they hope that this Parliament will continue to sustain its interest and concern in their issues.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of members of the British Tamil community, and others,
	 Declares that the loss of life, denial of human rights, and restricted access of the United Nations and other relief agencies in Sri Lanka are unacceptable; and further declares that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have been displaced by military action and face an uncertain future.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty' s Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000357]

Simon Hughes: I, too, have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of Tamil British citizens who live in south London, but also in north, west and east London, who have come to many of us to seek every opportunity to put their case to both Parliament and the Government. Every day, they have news of further loss, death and injury. They are desperate for a remedy. They appreciate what has already been done, but they are using every method open to themthis is one of the most important methods in our political processto ask us to ask Government to respond immediately in the best and most energetic way that they can. I join colleagues of other parties in supporting those people.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of members of the British Tamil community, and others,
	 Declares that the loss of life, denial of human rights, and restricted access of the United Nations and other relief agencies in Sri Lanka are unacceptable; and further declares that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have been displaced by military action and face an uncertain future.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty' s Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000355]

HUMBERSIDE PROBATION SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.( Helen Goodman.)

Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate to raise my deep concerns about the effect of proposed cuts on Humberside probation trust, the severe threat to front-line jobs of compulsory redundancies, the threat to the effectiveness of a highly rated and successful probation service, and the threat to the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents and those of my colleagues in the Humberside region.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will note that such is the concern about the cuts in the service that I am joined here by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), and I have also received representations from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).
	I start by stressing that the Humberside service is highly regarded. It was one of the first probation services in the country to achieve trust status. It is made up of dedicated staff, who do an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances. The director general of the national service, Mr. Philip Wheatley, stated:
	The challenges we face in delivering our ambitious objectives are considerable. We must sustain and build on the excellent work being done by staff in probation and prisons who work in challenging circumstances with some of the most vulnerable and demanding people in society.
	He continued:
	There has been a significant decline in adult re-offending since 2000 and latest figures show a further fall of 13 per cent. between 2005 and 2006.
	That demonstrates the commitment and dedication.
	There seem to be two problems currently facing the service. The first is the implementation of the new formula-based system. I can understand the need for efficiencies, but any approach must be fair and rational across the National Offender Management Service. Something is clearly wrong when the formula has such an impact on the Humberside service compared with other services. I know that it is based on conviction rates, but it makes no distinction between types of offence. Although Humberside may have a lower conviction rate than the national average, I understand that the percentage of convictions for serious crimes is higher than average, with all the implications of that for stress on staff and demands on the service. Front-line cuts will not help and I do not believe that they can be justified.
	The second problem seems to be Humberside probation trust's application of the cuts. Up to 60 compulsory redundancies have been threatened and discussed with staff, with 82 per cent. of those redundancies falling on front-line staffprobation officers and probation service officers. How can any compulsory redundancy in the service be justified? How does that fulfil the aspirations of the Ministry of Justice and the Humberside service?
	I have received many moving representations on the matter from constituents, who are worried about the position. I had a meeting this evening with Helen Burton, a Unison steward and probation service officer from Hull, and Tim Wilson, who is the national officer for the National Association of Probation Officers. I have also had letters from organisations that are involved in working to reduce crime, expressing their concerns that the proposals will not help that goal.
	I was especially shocked to hear that 11 trainee probation officers will have no posts to go to. That is not only a personal tragedy for those individuals, but a terrible waste of the money that has been spent on training them. I am also told that case loads for existing staff will increasein some cases, from an average of 40 to triple that amount.

Ian Cawsey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. As a former member of the Humberside probation trust board, I have seen for myself the fine work that the staff do.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good stated policy on probation workthey want probation workers to spend less time on office work and on computers and more time dealing with offendersbut that it would be hard to achieve in Humberside if all the cuts went ahead?

Elliot Morley: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He has a long and distinguished connection with Humberside police as a former chairman, as well as connections with Humberside probation service, which adds weight to his comments on this issue. It is essential that we have an efficient service, but I agree with him: I do not believe that what is happening is what the Ministry of Justice intended or that the formula funding that has been put in place was in any way intended to have the impact that it has had. In particular, I do not believe that it was intended to bring about compulsory redundancies in front-line services. I think that I am right in saying that Ministers from the Ministry of Justice have said a number of times that they do not wish to see impacts on front-line services weakening the efficiency of the service.

Shona McIsaac: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many people affected by the cuts have also come to see me, as has Alan Cotterill, the National Association of Probation Officers representative in our area. Every person who has come to see me about the cuts has said that it is the speed at which they are being made that is so frightening. It seems that no other service in the country is making cuts in quite as headlong a way as Humberside is.

Elliot Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, have been in touch with Alan Cotterill, who has made a compelling case on behalf of his members about the problems faced by the service. The speed of the cuts is a concern. It is not just the formula that is an issue, but how it is being applied in the service. I have great concerns about that. However, I repeat: I do not believe that that is what the Ministry of Justice wants. I very much hope that the Minister can reassure us this evening that he does not want to see compulsory redundancies or the impact that they would have on full-time jobs.

Graham Stuart: I, too, am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has secured tonight's debate. Does he agree that, because of the recession, when we can perhaps expect crime rates to rise, this is exactly the wrong time to cut front-line probation service staff? I understand that, in the opinion of those involved, doing so could lead to an increase in the number of criminal offences committed by people who are not supported to go on the straight and narrow. That means that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will be suffering from increased lawlessness as a result of the cuts.

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree that we can see the success of the probation service in terms of the reduction in reoffending rates and overall reductions in crime. None of our constituents wants an increase in crime, and the probation service is an important part of that. The Government have recognised that there are bound to be pressures when we are in a recession. For example, they have quite rightly given additional funding to jobcentres to deal with people who have been unfortunate enough to be made redundant. Such issues therefore have to be recognised.
	I met the chief executive of the Humberside probation trust, Mr. Steve Hemming, to discuss the proposed cuts, following representations that I had received from constituents. He told me the steps that he was taking to try to encourage voluntary redundancies, but according to my constituents who work in the service, many staff have received formal notification that their posts are at risk of compulsory redundancy. I also share the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole and for Cleethorpes have both put to me, as well as those made in union representations, about the timetable for the redundancies, which is due to commence on 6 May, with dismissals potentially in early June, appearing to be going at breakneck speed. According to the chief executive, part of the reason for that is to do with doubts about the availability of end-of-year flexibility to the service and the way in which the three-year budgets have been put in place. The issue is so serious that even if restructuring is needed, which is arguable, it should certainly be managed in a way that avoids compulsory redundancy.
	I have three requests for the Minister tonight. I know that he is a sincere and good Minister, and he has certainly done a lot of work to improve and strengthen the probation service. I do not believe that he in any way wants to see cuts such as these. My first request is that he please look again at the formula and, in particular, at the disproportionate effect it is having on Humberside probation trustand, indeed, a number of other probation trusts. Its impact is disproportionate. Secondly, will he please look at the issue of end-of-year flexibility and the way in which the budgets have been applied, to ensure that there is some flexibility within the National Offender Management Service budget as a whole, to prevent front-line cuts and compulsory redundancies? Thirdly, will he contact the chief executive of the Humberside probation trust as a matter of urgency and ask him to put an immediate hold on the compulsory redundancy process while the Ministry of Justice looks at the issue and discusses potential options with him?
	I repeat that I do not believe that the problems facing the Humberside probation trust are consequences that the Ministry of Justice intended or that it would support. I look to the Minister to give my constituents some hope, to look at the problem that the service is facing in a fair and rational way, and to ensure that there is an efficient, effective service and that peopleespecially those doing an excellent job in front-line positionswill not face the threat of compulsory redundancy, with all the uncertainty, upset and destabilisation that that brings.

David Hanson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for raising this issue. I am pleased to see a strong Humberside delegation in the Chamber tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) is on the Treasury Bench, and my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) are also present. I confess that, as a graduate of Hull university, I feel an affinity for Humberside, but I shall leave that for another day.
	The concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed have also been raised with me by representatives of the National Association of Probation Officersits chair, Tim Wilson, and its general secretary, Jonathan Ledgerand by Ben Priestley, the Unison organiser. They are serious issues, and I have taken care to look at them in detail.
	As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, there is excellent performance in the Humberside probation trust at the moment. It is consistently rated at level 4 in the latest NOMS agency probation performance ratings, which denotes exceptional performance. Humberside is one of the six probation areas that successfully passed a capability assessment to achieve trust status in April 2008. The trust was then successful in bidding for funding for an intensive alternatives to custody project. It is good at making links to prison and at community engagement on the reducing reoffending agenda, and particularly at developing an innovative approach to working with women offenders. Indeed, I visited the trust about this time last year to see at first hand the work that it does. I visited Hull prison at the same time.
	In the trust's offender management inspection report in March this year, all six criteria inspected were found to be well met or satisfactorily met, so it is an impressive organisation. It also passes what I regard as the acid test for the operation of criminal justice agencies, because in Humberside between 2006-07 and 2007-08, there was a 14 per cent. fall in overall crime, a 19 per cent. fall in domestic burglary and a 23 per cent. fall in thefts of a motor vehicle. That shows that, along with the police, the trust is doing something right.
	The national position on probation services is as follows. In response to higher expectations, the Government have invested significant resources in the probation service over a sustained period. Between 1997 and 2008, probation funding overall has increased from 540 million to 914 milliona 70 per cent. increase. The number of front-line staff has increased from more than 14,000 employees in 1997 to 21,000 to date.
	From that perspective, there has been strong and consistent investment by the Labour Government in the service. Indeed, only last year we put in place an additional one-off investment of 40 million to facilitate the use of community orders rather than short prison sentences and to improve offender compliance with community orders and licences. Again, there has been success, with the figure on frequency of reoffending falling 23 per cent. over the past six years.
	The service nationally receives more than 900 million of public money, but I know that my right hon. Friend would expect us to use that public money effectively. In these times, we have to look at how we use those moneys efficiently. As has been put to me by NAPO, and indeed by Unison, we need to ensure that probation officers spend time managing offenders and not in front of a computer but doing the job for which they are paid, using those facilities as back-up to that work.
	We have to accept that we have set challenging efficiency targets for probation areas and trusts. In doing so, we have been clear that the priority is public protection, and that will not be compromised. Resources must be targeted at high-risk offenders and those offenders most likely to reoffend.
	In 2009, we have had to make savings of about 20 million from our total budget for probation of 914 million. However, I can inform the House that although the figures have not yet been finalised, we are expecting an overall underspend of about 20 millionthe same as the savings that we are asking be made this year. That demonstrates that overall the savings are not unrealistic for probation boards and trusts across the board.
	Indicative budgets have been set for each probation area and have been issued. Howeverthis is important for my right hon. Friend to recognisethe director general of the National Offender Management Service has now made it clear that the indicative probation budgets were issued without the knowledge or approval of Ministers, and so have no authority, as there is no comprehensive spending review settlement for 2011-12 onwards. Therefore, there cannot be any accurate indicative budgets for any area of Government spending beyond that period.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the next spending round will be challenging for all Departments, it does not necessarily follow that all services will be affected equally in that spending period. Therefore, indicative budgets for 2011-12 and beyond, nationally and locally, are withdrawn. We will keep those under review. That will have an impact on what Humberside probation will look at for the future.

Graham Stuart: It is extraordinary to have released indicative budgets without asking Ministers first. If there was ever an area in which I would have thought Ministers were asked for their approval, it would be one such as that. Can the Minister explain how this happened and what he is doing to ensure that no such loss of ministerial control happens again?

David Hanson: NOMS is an Executive agency. We look at these issues in policy terms, but the director general has a number of Executive decisions to take. Issuing indicative budgets is one of them, but we have reviewed the situation with him and reached the conclusions that I have given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe in today's debate.
	The probation budgets have been set for this year, and are indeed set for next year. Probation areas have to manage within their means in that respect. In that context, I shall discuss the situation in Humberside. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Humberside probation trust. Indeed, this morning, I spoke to the chief executive of the trust, meeting him and the director of offender management, Steve Wagstaffe, today to consider those issues. I say again that Humberside still has to look at the efficiency savings that need to be made at the moment. If I may, I shall put on record the overall saving requirement for Humberside for this year.
	The area has been required to make an overall saving of 1 million, which is 5.4 per cent.a budget reduction from 18.2 million to 17.2 million. When we look at the figures in detail, we see that much of the decrease relates to specific allocations such as performance bonuses, which will not be paid this year, of 223,000, or to the trainee probation officer budget, which is being reduced pending a national policy review, saving 310,000. I will touch on the point about trainee probation officers in a moment. Therefore, the actual baseline budget reduction for Humberside probation trust is about 407,000 or 2.5 per cent., from 16.3 million to 15.9 million.
	However, the important point for my right hon. Friend is that provisional figures show that Humberside probation trust under-spent its budget last year by 335,000. This year, the demonstrable saving is therefore about 72,000, which is achievable and not an unreasonable savings target. We are considering specifications, benchmarking and costing programmes to identify areas where that can be achieved.
	My right hon. Friend touched on linking the budget formula to the number of convictions in an area, so that resources can be allocated fairly in proportion to work loads. I will consider the issues that he raised, and return to him on the matter. To ensure that funding allocations are as fair as possible, several other factors, including current financial performance and the need to avoid radical budget changes in any one area, have been taken into account.
	The Humberside probation trust is looking to take steps to ensure efficient delivery of services and prioritisation of resources on the most important areas. The trust is maximising the time that offender managers spend on face-to-face work with offenders by minimising administration and administrative tasks. Strong partnerships are available in Humberside to enable offenders to access services such as housing and employment. That work will be of importance in the future.
	However, we need to consider the issues mentioned by my right hon. Friend. In his first 10 days in post, the new director of offender management for Yorkshire and Humberside, Steve Wagstaffe, met individually chief officers and chairs from every area and trust in his region to discuss budget planning. He is carefully monitoring the work being undertaken locally to reduce the number of managerial and back-office posts in order to concentrate resources on the front line.
	Trade union engagement nationally and locally is also important to ensure that staff are treated fairly. The Government are doing all that we can, and I have encouraged engagement nationally, with NAPO and Unison, to ensure that positive work is undertaken through the national joint negotiating council.
	On redundancies in Humberside, 58.25 full-time equivalent staffing cuts are planned for 2009-10. Within that, 16 voluntary redundancies are already confirmed. A further 20 post holders have applied for voluntary redundancy or flexible retirement, and those are still to be confirmed with the Humberside probation trust. Therefore, 36 of the 58 staff required have already applied for voluntary redundancy. With a staff turnover of between 1 and 2 per cent. in any given year, and secondments, that will account for the bulk of the remaining posts.
	Following the pressure applied by my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes and for Brigg and Goole and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, I am confident that there are no firm plans for compulsory redundancies. I am also confident in the assessment of the director of offender management and the chief of Humberside probation trust that the savings required can be made without a dip in performance. Obviously, we will need to continue to monitor the situation.

Elliot Morley: It is only fair to put on record my appreciation and thanks. It is excellent news that there will not be compulsory redundancies. I was fascinated to hear the details of the budget, which throws a different light on some matters. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the compulsory process and notices that have gone out will be changed as quickly as possible, and that staff in the service will be reassured?

David Hanson: As I have said, my official, the director of offender management, Steve Wagstaffe, is in close discussion with the Humberside probation trust. I have tried to indicate to hon. Members that the planned cuts of 58.25 full-time equivalent posts have more or less been met through voluntary redundancy requests and staff turnover. I confirm that there are no firms plans at this time for compulsory redundancies, and I am confident that the director of offender management will discuss with the chief executive of the trust how to deal with those issues. In fact, any decisions to make staff redundant in the region, including by Humberside probation trust, will need to be referred through Steve Wagstaffe, the director of offender management for the region. With responsibility now for offender management services in prison and probation, he will be tasked with exploring every option before any front-line compulsory redundancies are madethere is a willingness now to try to avoid those. That will potentially include realigning budgets across and between probation areas, and indeed between prison establishments, where necessary. In order not to increase the staffing pressures on probation boards and trusts, the director of offender management has already determined that seconded probation staff levels in prisons will not be reduced this year.
	This process is being mirrored across the country. In every region, directors of offender management are challenging assumptions, tackling the difficult questions and examining these issues. We are trying to ensure that we undertake these services in a positive and productive way. As I have said, I want to try to protect the front line, while making efficiency savings, as we all want to do. In difficult and challenging times, none of us in this House wishes to see resources from taxpayers not being put to their most effective use. I know that even the trade unions involved believe that there are more efficient ways in which we can deliver services to protect the public as a whole. There is a better way of working and we do not have to perpetuate the mistakes that we have made.
	I think that we can make the savings that are achievable in Humberside this year and next year, and we can ensure that Humberside meets the tests, as it has done already, for trust status. We can also ensure that we continue to protect the public and deliver efficient and effective services, and that we do so in a way that I hope will take my right hon. and hon. Friends with us at a local level in Humberside and in other areas of the country.
	These are very difficult and challenging issues, but I strongly believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has raised them in a productive and positive way. I am grateful to my Labour colleagues for their attendance this evening, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss these issues with the chief executive and the director of offender management in the coming weeks, to ensure that the budgets for 2010-11 and for 2009-10 are met. The budgets beyond that date are subject to further discussion after the comprehensive spending review, and I hope that that will allow the chief executive and the director of offender management to examine these issues in a new light and in a more productive way, with the option of helping to improve and defend these services for the future.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.